Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Social Security Card

Mr. Legg: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce a social security card for the payment of benefits. [20116]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Last year, I announced plans to automate the payment of benefits at post offices. Order books and girocheques will be phased out and replaced by a benefit payment card for all claimants who wish to be paid via a post office. That will help to eliminate fraud, reduce costs for taxpayers, be more secure for customers and support the future of the post office network.

Mr. Legg: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, over the next three years, he will be spending £300 million to help to combat fraud? Can he also confirm that combating fraud effectively will help to ensure that benefits can continue to be paid through post offices?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct. I have obtained agreement from the Treasury to spend extra money on preventing fraud. We believe that that will save substantial amounts of money for the taxpayer and ensure that the money goes where it should—to those in genuine

need. That is in addition to the investment that we hope for in the new payments system, which is of the order of £130 million. We hope to involve private finance in developing that operation.

Mr. Frank Field: What is the point of issuing the new cards when large numbers of people, often working in gangs, are wrongly claiming benefit? How many spare national insurance numbers are there? What action is the right hon. Gentleman going to take to prevent the use of any of the millions of spare national insurance numbers for fraudulent claims?

Mr. Lilley: The cards will, I hope, directly eliminate the sort of fraud that the hon. Gentleman mentions. He is correct to say that gangs of people steal order books and then impersonate their owners. Order books are one of the least secure means of payment.
Once we have a payment card and post offices are directly linked to the central source of information, this form of fraud and abuse will be virtually eliminated, with a saving of about £150 million to the taxpayer. We are in the process of cleaning up the national insurance number system to make it more effective. It is true that a number of people who have emigrated or died still have their numbers on the system, but they are not, for that reason, available for anyone to use.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Would my right hon. Friend care to commend my local office, which spotted a slight inconsistency about a gentleman who claimed to be incapacitated but who managed to drive up in a jazzy sports car to collect benefit? He was today convicted in Preston Crown court of defrauding the system of £60,000.

Mr. Lilley: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the detection of that abuse of the system. We are introducing a more objective system of evaluating whether people are fit to work. If they are fit to work, they will be helped back into work through back-to-work


benefits; if they are unfit, they will receive the new incapacity benefit, which we want to go to those who are genuinely medically unable to work.

Mr. Bennett: Given the large number of people whose credit cards are stolen, what steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to enable people who lose their cards to get their payments quickly without having to go through a bureaucratic process that will cause them further distress?

Mr. Lilley: That is an important aspect. The consortia competing to bring in the system have been narrowed down to five. They are making their detailed proposals. One aspect for which they have to ensure that they have the best possible arrangements on offer is coping with people who lose their cards or who are unable to go to the post office and want to nominate a relative or friend to go in their place. All these things have to be done, and done securely.

Incapacity Benefit

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the introduction of the new incapacity benefit; and if he will make a statement. [20117]

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): I have received a number of letters about incapacity benefit since the changes were announced in December 1993. Those changes will target help through a fairer, more objective medical test and provide an affordable and sustainable system of incapacity provision for the future.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are right to restructure the invalidity benefit system so that those who are genuine claimants will continue to receive benefit and others can be encouraged to return to work? Should that not help to control the ever-rising cost of benefit expenditure?

Mr. Hague: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The old system was well intentioned but inconsistent and haphazard in its application. The new test will focus help on those who are entitled to it. That is what the welfare state is about and that is what the taxpayer is entitled to expect.

Dr. Reid: In the representations that the Minister has received, has anyone remarked on the amazing foresight—indeed, the prophetic nature—of the Department? Even before questionnaires have been completed and medical examinations undertaken, the Department suggests that there will be savings of £3.3 billion over three years. How is it that it can make that prediction before medicals have taken place? Is that not illustrative of the fact that the exercise has been led by the Treasury as a cost-cutting measure and is not a system of fair payments for disabilities?

Mr. Hague: No. The test is about focusing help on those who need it most and are entitled to it. Of course there are estimates of savings. We believe that there will be savings because we know that the old system was inconsistent and haphazard in its application. Everyone knows that except those in the Labour party.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I note the Government's intention next year to refer to placing, assessment and counseling

teams the 29,000 people who, it is anticipated, will fail to qualify for incapacity benefit and will therefore sign on and claim the jobseeker's allowance. What plans do the Government have to provide advice and help to another 120,000, on the Government's estimate, who have degrees of disability, will not be eligible for incapacity benefit and will be required to seek work actively if they are to be able to claim benefit?

Mr. Hague: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Employment Service will be ready to provide the full range of its usual help to anyone who has been receiving invalidity benefit but is not eligible for incapacity benefit. I draw his attention to the improvements that we are making in the disability working allowance system for the many disabled people who want to work and are able to do so. The improvement will bring considerable benefits to many people.

Ms Lynne: I have no doubt that the Minister has received representations from citizens advice bureaux throughout the country, along with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. Where will the Government find extra funding for citizens advice bureaux so that they can cope with the increased work load due to the devastating effect that the introduction of incapacity benefit has had on many people?

Mr. Hague: Incapacity benefit will not have a devastating effect. It is about focusing entitlement on those who are medically incapable of work. The Government have a most constructive relationship with citizens advice bureaux, and I am confident that that will continue.

Fraud

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress he is currently making in combating fraudulent claims. [20119]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. James Arbuthnot): The fight against fraud remains a top priority. Some £645 million was saved in 1993–94 due to direct action by fraud staff. This was an increase of 17 per cent. on both the previous year's figures, and the target set for the year.

Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend will know that there are few things that anger the British people more than the activities of rip-off merchants who fraudulently take the money of the British taxpayer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It seems that that does not worry Opposition Members, but my constituents consider such rip-off activities a disgrace. That is why my constituents, along with people throughout the country, congratulate the Government on the work that has already been done to reduce fraud. What work is being done to harness computer technology and modern payment systems to ensure that fraud is further driven back?

Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. It is of great concern throughout the country that some people defraud the social security system. That is why we are determined to squeeze fraud out of the system altogether so that it is not there for us to catch. We shall be concentrating on the electronic stop-notice system, which is already doing valuable work in London. We shall be increasing the use of data matching. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary


of State has said, we shall be introducing benefit payment cards as well as increasing the number of highly targeted visits. These measures will be effective in reducing and eliminating fraud.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Given the Secretary of State's miserable failure to answer the question asked by the Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee, will the Minister now confirm that there are about 15 million spare national insurance numbers, and give an undertaking that the availability of those numbers for fraud will be dealt with by the Government, because his right hon. Friend does not seem to be able to give an answer?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the question that he has just asked. A large number of national insurance numbers are in existence, partly because when somebody dies it may well be necessary to keep a number in existence to allow a pension that is payable as a result of it to continue to be payable. Perhaps he does not understand his question.

Family Credit

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of families receiving family credit. [20120]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): In July 1994, 572,000 families were receiving family credit. Figures for October 1994 will be published later this week.

Mr. Marshall: Will my hon. Friend draw a contrast between the policy of the Government, who are helping 572,000 families with low incomes, and the policy of another party, which is determined to create mass unemployment among the low-paid by introducing a national minimum wage? Does he expect it to recant on that policy on the road to Sedgefield?

Mr. Burt: I do not see why my hon. Friend should be shy about it. I think that he should name the Labour party as the party determined to bring in a minimum wage, which would destroy jobs. The great difference between us is that, while the Labour party remains obsessed with the level of benefits, we are equally concerned about the level of benefit dependency. Whereas our policies take people off benefits, the Labour party's policies would return people to them.

Mr. Corbyn: Would the Minister care to tell us what studies have been done by his Department on how much family credit could be saved by the introduction of a national minimum wage of £4.10 per hour and what the effect would be on the poverty levels of a large number of people who have to rely not just on family credit but on other benefits, because the wages paid—often by multinational corporations—are so disgracefully low? Indeed, in some cases they are actually falling.

Mr. Burt: The average payment for family credit at the moment is some £48 a week, which, as I said earlier, goes to some half a million families. As to studies, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would not rather rely on the judgment of the deputy leader of the Labour party, who said straightforwardly that a minimum wage policy would cost jobs. That seems to me a good enough study.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the time in people's lives when they are most likely to be poor is when they have their first child and move, normally from two incomes, two mouths to feed, to one income, three mouths to feed? Will he commit the Government to continue to pay child benefit as a way of ensuring that only one household in 12 needs family income support?

Mr. Burt: Child benefit remains a cornerstone of our support for families. The commitment was in the manifesto. The policy of the Government since that time has shown that we care very much about ensuring that the poorest families have the greatest support, which is why the 1988 reforms have produced £1 billion-worth of benefits, which are going to the poorest families in the country. That is £1 billion more than there would have been but for those reforms.

Invalidity Benefit

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are his estimates of the impact of changes in invalidity benefit payment arrangements on individual areas of the United Kingdom. [20121]

Mr. Hague: Estimates about the effects of the introduction of incapacity benefit are derived from national data and therefore cannot be broken down regionally with reliable accuracy.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The operative word being "reliable", of course. The data can be broken down if the Government want to. Notwithstanding the considerable distress that is felt by individuals who are being switched from invalidity benefit to incapacity benefit, why did the Government not measure—in areas such as my own in west Cumbria—the economic impact in terms of job losses and business closures as a result of the introduction of incapacity benefit? Has it not yet dawned on Ministers that a very large amount of money is being paid in invalidity benefit in areas of declining industry, where health is poor, and that the removal of much of that money from the local economy will have a major economic impact on areas such as mine?

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind two points. First, the forecast national savings are savings in relation to what would have been spent, rather than in relation to the current spending level. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman, and all Labour Members, should remember that increases in spending mean increases in taxation, which also takes money out of the local economy and the economy across the nation. Labour Members never seem to think about the number of businesses that that closes, and the number of job losses that it causes.

Jobseekers Bill

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the projected savings from the passing of the Jobseekers Bill; and if he will make a statement. [20122]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): The direct benefit


savings are projected to be around £270 million in a full year. However, that figure takes no account of success in getting people back to work earlier.

Mr. Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the financial considerations, there is also a moral aspect? Does not the taxpayer need to be protected from those who are not genuinely seeking work, and is that not precisely what the Bill will achieve?

Mr. Evans: Yes. The provisions for a jobseeker's agreement and direction are focused on that specific problem.

Habitual Residence Test

Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals there have been against refusal of benefit under the habitual residence test; and how many appeals have resulted in an award of benefit. [20123]

Mr. Lilley: The independent tribunal service records appeals according to the relevant benefit, not according to the reason for refusal. How many income support appeals refer to habitual residence is therefore not known.

Mr. Timms: The Secretary of State will be aware that, in an Adjournment debate on 21 March, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), told the House that the information was available. I do not blame him for that error, which exemplifies the enormous amount of confusion that there has been in both his Department and the Benefits Agency over the test since its introduction.
Is the Secretary of State aware of anecdotal evidence that at least half, and possibly two thirds, of appeals against refusal of benefit under the habitual residence test are successful? Does that not confirm that there are severe problems with the test, and does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the information for which I have asked is basic data that the House needs to make a proper evaluation of this deeply flawed legislation?

Mr. Lilley: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a sincere and continuing interest in the subject, and I respect him for that, but I do not necessarily accept all his analyses. Adjudication officers' decisions are not themselves law-making; only when they reach the commissioners do they determine the position, and become precedents elsewhere. We shall have to wait a while before any of them do that.
The courts have, however, upheld the validity of the test as a whole. I think that the House will welcome the fact that we have acted to prevent benefit tourism, thereby saving the taxpayer considerable sums. Opposition Members always resist any changes that we introduce to prevent abuse of this kind: they are out of touch with the British people in that regard, as in so many others.

Mrs. Roe: I welcome the habitual residence test. May I urge my right hon. Friend to clamp down on bogus asylum seekers? Is he aware of the recent case of the Algerian asylum seeker, Mr. Abeey Dikes, who, on the tube, kicked and head-butted a young doctor? Does he agree that people like Mr. Dikes should not be able to stay in this country at the taxpayer's expense?

Mr. Lilley: It is not for me to comment on individual cases, but I am aware of the outrage that is caused when

people abuse this country's hospitality, either by committing crimes when they are being supported here or by obtaining support to which they are not entitled. We shall do all in our power to prevent both abuses.

Mr. Bradley: I thank the Under-Secretary for correcting his statement in the Adjournment debate that he had supplied me with figures showing the number of people who had won appeals. In a written answer, he confirmed that he had not made that information available. That is not good enough, however: we need to know how many British citizens have been denied their entitlement to income support through the habitual residence test.
As the Secretary of State is able to provide me with figures for every office in the country showing the number of people who have been denied benefit through the test, will he now supply me with the number of people whose benefits have been started again because they have won their appeals against the test?

Mr. Lilley: I shall certainly see whether such information is available, but I fear that it may not be. Obviously, information that comes directly from the independent tribunal service is normally provided by the service, and I do not think that it would be cost-effective to try to produce the records that the hon. Gentleman proposes.
There will be a number of appeals. Some will be successful; some will fail. An appeal mechanism is an essential part of our system—a proper safety net whose existence we should welcome, rather than counting it as a failure when an appeal succeeds.

Pensioner Households (Consumer Goods)

Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households had (a) a fridge, (b) a car, (c) a freezer, (d) a telephone and (e) a television in 1979; and how many do today. [20125]

Mr. Burt: In 1979, some 88 per cent. of pensioners had access to a fridge; by 1991–92, the latest year for which information is available, that figure had climbed to 99 per cent. In 1979, 34 per cent. had access to a car; 49 per cent. now have access to one. In 1979, some 32 per cent. had access to a freezer or fridge-freezer; 75 per cent. now have access to one. In 1979, some 57 per cent. had access to a telephone; 92 per cent. now have access to one. In 1979, some 96 per cent. had access to a television; 99 per cent now have access to one.

Mr. Brazier: Do not those practical examples illustrate how wealth has trickled up from the general economy to retired people? Is it not easy to forget the plight of so many retired people in earlier generations, including those who lived under the previous Government, who saw the retirement living standards, which they had worked so hard to save for and hoped for, destroyed by the scourge of inflation, which this Government have overcome?

Mr. Burt: The most significant finding from studies on low income shows how the income of pensioners as a group has come out of the bottom decile of income in a manner unprecedented before the Government came into office. Pensioners are increasing their income through occupational pensions and the like, but, as my hon. Friend


said, they remain vulnerable to policies that would produce inflation—policies advocated by Opposition Members. I see no answer in new Labour to old inflation.

Mr. Wicks: Lest this question is designed to produce complacency, will the Minister tell the House how many pensioners paid VAT on fuel in 1979 and how many do so today? Will he explain why more old people die in the winter in this country than in any European country for which figures are available?

Mr. Burt: Labour Members persist in presenting the image of the pensioner as a dependent person. When will they appreciate that pensioners are fitter than they were before, live longer than they did before, have more varied interests in their leisure time, and are making a substantial contribution to the voluntary sector and society? The Government cater for the poorer pensioner by reforms introduced in 1988. We have been able to put in £1 billion in extra support to the poorest. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that the VAT compensation package was higher than that suggested even by his Front-Bench team.

Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that his figures demonstrate the success of occupational pensions in enhancing living standards for the elderly, and that we need to do even more to encourage more people to put money into occupational pensions for their retirement?

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is right. The picture continues in the United Kingdom of pensioners being much more reflective of society as a whole, with a variety of different incomes and statuses. The Government seek to encourage those aspirations. We recognise that, when people retire, they still retain aspirations in life. We want to fuel those aspirations; we do not want pensioners to be bracketed as a group that is continually dependent on the rest of society. Pensioners are not, and they do not deserve to be because they have worked for us.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that some 25 per cent. of all single pensioners have an income of less than £70 a week, and that is before housing cost? Does not that information, which was given to me in a parliamentary reply, illustrate the scale of pensioner poverty? Despite all that the Minister has said, the fact that so many pensioners are living on such low incomes should embarrass the Government. It is undoubtedly a factor in why so many people conclude that the only group that the Government are really concerned about is the rich and the prosperous. They could not give a damn about the millions of pensioners who live in poverty.

Mr. Burt: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman ignores the information that, since 1979, the total average income of pensioners has increased by 50 per cent., which is faster than the rate of growth in the population as a whole. He must have his own motives.
In seeking to protect the poorer pensioner, the Government are ensuring that, through our reforms in social security, we put money where it is most needed. At the same time, we have encouraged the pensioners to make contributions for themselves, and that is reflected in the growth in income over the years.
The hon. Gentleman never apologises for the damage done by the Labour Government to the pensioners during 1974 to 1979, when not only was their income robbed by inflation, but his Government presided over a one-third

cut in capital spending on the national health service—a service that we have built up to support all pensioners. Instead of displaying incredulity and arrogance in the way that he puts his questions, when will the hon. Gentleman apologise for what his Government did to pensioners?

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that central to our belief that the quality of life of our pensioners must improve is our intention that their real spending power should also improve? Does he agree that, between 1974 and 1979, one of the tragedies to befall our pensioners was that those who had put income to one side for their future saw the real value of that money halved by inflation? Will my hon. Friend give a commitment today that the Government will ensure that inflation is kept to a minimum to preserve the real value of pensioners' money?

Mr. Burt: Yes. The House and the country know that the Government have pledged to keep inflation low. We have pledged to follow policies that will keep down inflation. If the country thinks that a return to the inflation policies of the Labour party will benefit anyone, it is sadly mistaken. I do not believe that the country will make such an error of judgment.

Social Fund Funeral Payments

Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish the report by the Social Security Advisory Committee on the proposed limit to social fund funeral payments and the Government's response to that report. [20126]

Mr. Lilley: I am considering the Social Security Advisory Committee's report and I will lay the report, and my response to it, before the House shortly.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the huge regional variations in the cost of a funeral? Today, I telephoned round my constituency and the cheapest funeral I could find cost in excess of £1,000. Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider scrapping the national limit of £875? Has he no sympathy for the bereaved families on low incomes, or is it just another cynical attempt to raise funds so that the Government can cut taxes before the next election?

Mr. Lilley: I am aware of the differences across the country in the fees for cremation and, in particular, burial and I want to take that into account in the examination that I am currently conducting. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the number of claims for social fund funeral payments has doubled over the past six years and the amount spent has trebled. Therefore, it is only right that we should take action to prevent abuse. Indeed, we have already taken action to stop people seeking a distant relative on income support to make the application. I thought that we had the support of the Opposition in that measure. Are they now withdrawing it?

Mr. Dewar: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously maintaining that the growth in the number of funeral grants is the result of abuse, lead swinging and fraud? Is it not rather a direct reflection of the growth in poverty over the past few years?
Can we take it from the parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on 5 April that the £875 ceiling—a figure that is below


the mean and the median award in the previous financial year—is now being abandoned? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the one essential test for any replacement scheme is that it genuinely allows for a dignified funeral for a bereaved family facing difficult circumstances?

Mr. Lilley: Since we took steps to ensure that the nearest relatives or friends with a genuine connection with the deceased undertook the funeral—rather than distant people brought in purely for the purpose of ensuring eligibility for grants—the growth in claims has stopped almost overnight. The hon. Gentleman may wish to withdraw his support for that measure, in common with the Opposition's usual practice of not taking any steps to ensure that money goes to those who are genuinely in need.
Conservatives want to ensure that those in receipt of income support can give their relatives a proper, dignified funeral, but we do not want to see the money wasted under the method to which the hon. Gentleman seems to wish to return.

Occupational Pensions

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of retired people had occupational pensions in 1979 and 1994; and if he will make a statement. [20128]

Mr. Arbuthnot: In 1979, 43 per cent. of people over state pension age had an income from an occupational pension. By 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, that proportion had increased to 60 per cent.

Mr. Dunn: Will the Minister confirm that the Government's encouragement of occupational pensions has helped to achieve a 50 per cent. increase in pensioners' average net incomes since 1979? Will he further confirm that measures in the Pensions Bill, against which the Labour party voted, will help to make occupational pensions more secure in future?

Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes. Our policy is to encourage private pension provision, the money from which goes into industry and into creating assets to build up pensions for the future. Last Monday, however, in its reasoned amendment, the Labour party voted not to give the Pensions Bill a Second Reading. It voted to deny pensioners the security that the Bill will provide, it voted to deny women the equality that the Bill will provide and it voted to deny the entire country of the choice that the Bill will provide, yet Labour Members pose as the friends of pensioners.

Mr. Ingram: Everyone would welcome the growth in the number of people in receipt of occupational pensions, but will not many millions of our fellow citizens, who will become pensioners in the years ahead, be dependent on the state earnings-related pension scheme to supplement their pension income? Does the Minister accept the assessment of the Government Actuary that the proposed changes to SERPs in the Pensions Bill—the very Bill that he is defending—will substantially reduce people's supplementary pension income, with a total

reduction of more than £9 billion by 2050? Will he give detailed figures assessing the effects of those changes on individual entitlement at the time of retirement?

Mr. Arbuthnot: Today is Labour Day and this is new Labour speaking. It surprises me that Labour has decided to attack a reduction in state spending in the light of its new Labour image on Saturday. It also surprises me that Labour dares to say anything about pensions, as it will not even tell the country whether, if it were in office, it would uprate pensions by prices or by earnings. It is necessary, as I have said before, to improve and increase private pension provision. One of the reasons why there will be a reduction in SERPs is that so many people will be going into private pension provision over the next 20, 30 or 40 years.

Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm that occupational pensioners have seen an increase of about two thirds in the amount, on average, that they receive from their occupational pensions since 1979? Will he also confirm that the very poorest pensioners, who probably do not receive occupational pensions, will from April this year, as a couple, receive a minimum of £100 a week, with all their housing costs being paid? Does not that show how the Government care for the welfare of poor pensioners?

Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. On average, newly retiring pensioners have an occupational pension of about £100 a week over and above the state retirement pension.

Disabled People (Civil Rights)

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent meetings he has had with disabled people to discuss civil rights questions. [20130]

Mr. Hague: I have met, and shall continue to meet, disabled people and members of their organisations to discuss a wide variety of issues.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that on Friday hundreds of disabled people—some in wheelchairs, some on sticks—came to Parliament hoping to see the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill pass its Committee stage and be passed into law? They were met by a stony-faced Government who swamped the Bill in Committee with more than 100 amendments, many of which the Minister was responsible for. The net result was that those people were turned away at the gates and the Government kicked their crutches away. No wonder the people out there treat this Government with contempt.

Mr. Hague: Later this year, disabled people will have a great deal to celebrate because the Disability Discrimination Bill, which has been passed by the House and is now in another place, will spell the end of discrimination against disabled people in this country. It is a Conservative Government who will have placed on the statute book a working piece of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation.

Elderly People (Residential Care)

Ms Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people living in residential or nursing home care are being supported financially


by his Department; and if he will forecast the number he expects to be in these categories in three, five and 10 years' time. [20132]

Mr. Roger Evans: The latest figures show that 280,000 people in residential care or nursing homes are being supported financially by my Department through income support, either through preserved rights to higher limits or through income support, including residential allowance. In three, five and 10 years' time, the figures are estimated to be 294,000, 303,000 and 327,000.

Ms Coffey: Is the Minister aware that, in Stockport, residential grant from the Department of Social Security is £30 lower than the grant available from the local authority to people who were admitted to residential and nursing care after 1993? Is he further aware that that is causing enormous problems in respect of the personal allowances being used by elderly people to top up that grant, and that relatives, who can ill afford it, are having to contribute? Will the Minister review the DSS grant to bring it into line with the actual charges of care and so prevent some of the humiliation and distress to my constituents? After all, it is not their fault that the Government have privatised health care for the elderly.

Mr. Evans: Of course the income support limits under preserved rights are reviewed annually. The limits have risen substantially in real terms since 1985. In nursing homes, the rise is 38 per cent. and for the elderly in residential care homes the rise is 16 per cent. in real terms. However, no Government could meet all fees, however high. In many parts of the country, fees are as high as £1,000 a week.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Special Advisers

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consultations he has recently had on the terms of appointment, and pay of, special advisers to Departments. [20146]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt): None.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that special advisers have highly unusual terms and conditions of service? Not only are their salaries arbitrarily linked to the remuneration that they received before they took their posts, thus causing the ridiculous differential between a merchant banker and an academic, but there is no scope for performance-related pay thereafter. Of more concern, perhaps, is the fact that about 50 per cent. of special advisers earn more than the Ministers they advise. Is it not about time that this ludicrous situation was sorted out?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend makes a number of important points on an area of responsibility that passed from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to me and my Department last month. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could give me time to ponder the significance of some of them. I will then certainly consider reviewing the policy in the way that he has suggested.

Mr. Madden: Will the Chancellor find out whether there is a special adviser at the Department of

Employment? If there is, will he send him or her to my constituency to find out why and how the Allerton outreach team has had such remarkable success in placing unemployed people in jobs and full-time training? Will the adviser then go back to London and persuade the Secretary of State for Employment to ensure that the team's funding, which has come from the Department over the past few months, is continued so that its remarkable success may continue and the unemployment toll in my constituency be significantly reduced?

Mr. Hunt: I will raise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I hope that he will recognise that there has been a significant fall in the number of unemployed people in this country, with 1,000 people coming off the dole every day for the past two years. It is about time that Opposition Members realised the facts, which are appreciated widely throughout the country: that the Government are responsible for the economic policies that are reducing the rate of unemployment.

Institute of Virology

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response he is sending to the representations he has received concerning the dismissal of the director of the Institute of Virology in Oxford by the Natural Environment Research Council; and if he will make a statement. [20147]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. John Horam): This is a matter for the Natural Environment Research Council, under its royal supplemental charter. However, I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter, and I will write to him shortly.

Mr. Dalyell: Is a perfunctory three days to clear one's desk and leave really an acceptable response to an internationally distinguished scientist on whose personal behaviour there is no blemish? Is that really the way in which the NERC should behave?

Mr. Horam: As the hon. Gentleman knows, at the bottom of the dispute is a difference of view about future research between the Institute of Virology and the NERC. The matter was discussed over a year, and an independent review came down on the side of the NERC. It was impossible to resolve the dispute, and Professor Bishop, the director, was given six months' notice and quite a generous package. It was clearly impossible to continue on the wrong direction for research, so he received three days' notice. None the less, I assure the hon. Gentleman that no aspersion is cast on the ability of Professor Bishop, who remains a distinguished and eminent virologist.

Government Policy

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what additional measures are required to improve the co-ordination and effective presentation of Government policy. [20148]

Mr. David Hunt: We are always looking at ways of doing even better.

Mr. Prentice: Will the Chancellor comment on reports in this morning's The Guardian that he is a leading doubter of the wisdom of rail privatisation and that he


wants to see it shelved this side of the election because the policy is too difficult to sell to the general public? Is there any truth in that? What are the presentational advantages, supposed or otherwise, of the privatisation of Nuclear Electric?

Mr. Hunt: I am very happy immediately to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no foundation to those reports; they are groundless and incorrect. As for the hon. Gentleman's general point, the concept of privatisation has swept the world, with the sole exception of the Labour party. There is an international queue at the Government's door asking how to go about the privatisation process and how to go about improving public services. Privatisation and the citizens charter are the tip of a formidable iceberg. All that I will say about Labour councils and the Labour party is that the Labour party is heading for that iceberg.

Mr. Dunn: As the Labour party finds it hard to distinguish fact from fiction, does my right hon. Friend agree that the red rose party is the red nose party—a party of comic relief?

Mr. Hunt: I am very grateful that my hon. Friend gives me an opportunity to reiterate that what we respect in the House of Commons—in this Chamber—is the fact that politics should be about policies, not about soundbites. It is about time that the Labour party learnt that lesson.

Mr. Pike: As the people of this country will once again show their view of the Government's policies on Thursday, and as the Chancellor is responsible for the presentation of Government policy, is he or the Prime Minister to be blamed for the Government's failures?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten once again that at the last general election the Conservative party secured a larger number of votes than any political party had ever secured before. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman remembered that.

Charters

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce further charters; and if he will make a statement. [20150]

Mr. Horam: New charters for further and higher education in Northern Ireland will be published later this year, as well as revised charters for council tenants and court users. A revised contributors charter for national insurance payers was published last week.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that British Gas has been put on probation for a year in relation to its charter mark—it could be taken away if it does not improve—and that that is an excellent use of charter marks? Will he further confirm that, despite its endless hollow boasting, the Labour party will never qualify for a charter mark?

Mr. Horam: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and he is particularly right in the light of the press releases that Labour has released today on consumers. The point about charter marks is that they are designed to be the Oscars of public service, and a mark of quality for someone who is doing well. It does not matter whether we are talking about British Gas or a local library—if it does not live up to its promises, it should have its charter

mark removed. British Gas has another nine months to come up to the mark. If it does not do so, we will take its mark away.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister accept that if bosses of utilities such as British Gas cannot self-regulate their snouts out of the trough, someone else must protect the public interest? Does he further agree that there is a need to revise the legislation that governs the powers of the regulator in gas and in other utilities so that the regulator can intervene where bosses fail to meet acceptable public standards in pay and conditions, which may be true of British Gas?

Mr. Horam: The Labour party would wrap everything up in more regulation and red tape. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that this matter is being considered by the Greenbury committee. Members on both sides of the House would wish to support the purpose of charter marks, which is to improve the quality of public services. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy said with regard to privatisation, the Government are ahead of every other Government in the world in improving public service.

Foresight Process

Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations he has received from industry scientists and other interested parties during the foresight process. [20151]

Mr. David Hunt: A great many. The technology foresight programme has been based on very extensive consultation, reaching out to more than 10,000 people through the work of panels, conferences, seminars, surveys and workshops.

Mrs. Gillan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what must be the most thorough and comprehensive consultation process that has ever taken place on science research and development in this country, which will result in the identification of opportunities in markets for our businesses in the next 10 or 20 years. When will the process be completed, and when will the entire foresight programme be drawn together by the steering group? When we can expect some action plans?

Mr. Hunt: We expect to publish the final report in the second half of this month, and we are responding to many of the reports with new research programmes. For example, the programme on applied biocatalysis, which I announced at the relaunch of the LINK programme on 14 March, focuses on a generic theme spotlighted by three of the foresight panels. The Government will contribute £4 million to the programme, with matching funds coming from industry. I agree with my hon. Friend that the 15 reports on technology foresight in "Progress Through Partnership" are examples of a programme that is beating the rest of the world. We intend to follow up that programme with clear initiatives that respond to the imaginative ideas that have been put forward.

Dr. Bray: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that many of the recommendations of the foresight panels go far beyond the laissez faire policies of the Government? Does the right hon. Gentleman have the support of his colleagues in pursuing the recommendations?

Mr. Hunt: It would have assisted me had the hon. Gentleman told me to which of the 15 reports he was referring. The President of the Board of Trade and I have announced an extension to the LINK programme, which is determined to follow up many of the initiatives proposed in the panel reports. The whole technology foresight programme has been a remarkable success, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join with many others throughout the country in welcoming the reports. We must ensure that the Government and all the relevant parties—in particular, industry—respond in the best way possible.

Mr. Battle: I welcome technology foresight in principle, but what is the point of the exercise when the recommendations in the various reports are undermined by the current actions of other Departments? The Department of Transport is privatising the Transport Research Laboratory, which undermines proposals in the transport report. The Department of Trade and Industry is pushing on with the privatisation of AEA Technology, despite the recommendations of the energy foresight report to extend and use our nuclear clean-up expertise. How can the Chancellor and his Department credibly claim to be co-ordinating the Government's science policy when other Ministers are undermining their work day by day? Where is the joined-up thinking?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has got the facts wrong again. I have read through the 15 reports. The transport report to which he refers contains some imaginative thinking, to which the Government will respond after very careful thought. As for all Government Departments, we will consider with colleagues how best to respond to the reports. The hon. Gentleman failed to refer to the fact that the science budget, which underpins all this work, reached a record level in the last financial year. In this financial year, the record cash figure of £1,281,675,000 will be spent. That is more than enough to ensure that we follow up many of the recommendations, in partnership with other Departments.

Citizens Charters

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what examples he has of improvements influenced by the citizens charters. [20152]

Mr. Horam: Many. They include hospital waiting times, passport applications, first-class letter delivery, driving licence applications, publication of school, police and local authority performance tables and guaranteed minimum standards for gas, water and electricity.

Mr. Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the spin-offs of the citizens charter is a bringing together of jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices, which ensures that people who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed can receive the full employment services that they need to get back into a job?

Mr. Horam: Yes, I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend. Not only that, but the agencies in question now see 98 per cent. of people within 10 minutes of their going to the office.

Mr. Flynn: Under which charter can the people of Wales and England complain on this glorious spring day because they have been denied their traditional May day

bank holiday, which is being enjoyed by the lucky people in Scotland? When will the Government stop mucking about with May day?

Mr. Horam: I really do not think that we need to keep the red flag flying on this day.

Engineering

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to meet the Institute of Civil Engineering to discuss the role of engineering. [20153]

Mr. Horam: In the last year my senior officials met engineering bodies on six occasions. I look forward to continuing this close relationship.

Mr. Marshall: In view of the importance of engineering to the economy, can my hon. Friend state that a Minister as well as officials will meet officials of the industry in future?

Mr. Horam: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend met engineering institutions three times in January, four times in February and three times in March. I have also met many engineers at all levels of—

Madam Speaker: Order. I would be much obliged if the Minister would use the microphone not only so that we can hear him but so that I can see him.

Mr. Horam: I was turning away, perhaps out of excessive politeness, to deal with my hon. Friend's question.
The results of yesterday's race at Imola, which Damon Hill won, and the fact that no fewer than nine of the 10 Grand Prix cars used were British-built by British engineering, shows the quality engineering that we have in Britain, which we should support.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Would the Minister like to astonish himself on one of the occasions when he or his newly found colleagues address the engineering institutions by recommending some way in which new jobs can be created in engineering so that we might begin to get back to the state in which we compete as engineers and do not have to import other people's goods?

Mr. Horam: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is behind the times. Manufacturing in this country has strengthened considerably in the past few years, particularly in vehicle manufacture, which she knows all about in her constituency. Engineering in Britain is on a high now. That is partly as a result of the interest of the Government and partly as a result of the inward investment that the Government have successfully encouraged in the past five or 10 years. The hon. Lady should come up to date.

Mr. Brandreth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as from next year, technology will be part of the national curriculum for all young people from five to 16 and that over the next three years the Government are committed to putting in an additional £10 million to top up bursaries for top-flight undergraduates studying technology?

Mr. Horam: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those facts. The Royal Academy of Engineering is getting another £400,000 this year, which will bring up to £2.6 million the contribution that we are making to that body. As a result of science being in the school curriculum for


the first time on a comprehensive basis, about 1.6 million pupils are now taking science subjects at GCSE level. That is more than double the figure of five years ago and is the result of the first group of children coming through the new science curriculum.

Women's Issues

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the work of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on women's issues in the past year. [20154]

Mr. David Hunt: The ministerial Committee on women's issues plays a key role in developing and monitoring policy on issues of special concern to women. As I explained to the House on 7 March, the Government have introduced a range of measures that have improved the position of women in our society.

Mr. Bayley: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Government Actuary's report on the Pensions Bill, which says that in the first year in which the Bill comes fully into force—if it does come into force—pensions paid to women will fall in value at today's prices by £4,600 million in that year alone? Has the Cabinet women's Committee considered the Pensions Bill and the disastrous effect that it will have on women? If so, what advice has it given the Cabinet?

Mr. Hunt: The issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are very much matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. Of course the ministerial Committee considers a range of issues affecting the position of women. As we said in the debate on 7 March, we have a very impressive record on ensuring that the position of women in society continues to improve.

Points of Order

Ms Ann Coffey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to enlist your help on how to proceed with a matter. On 5 April, in response to an oral question, the Minister with responsibility for information and technology said that he had an undertaking from the Cable Communications Association that all schools in the areas for which it has franchises would be connected. I then asked the Minister whether I could see a copy of that undertaking. No such undertaking exists. It is important for the Minister to make the matter clear because this is an important issue. His undertaking is in Hansard.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me: it is a matter for argument between the hon. Lady and the Minister. She might care to use the Order Paper to put down more questions or perhaps use an early-day motion to bring the matter to light.

Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Friday the House dealt with a number of private Members' Bills, one of which was the War Crimes (Supplementary Provisions) Bill [Lords]. A Government Whip and I objected to that Bill, but Hansard does not record that fact.

Madam Speaker: I will have a look at Hansard. I went through it today but I did not see that point in it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On entering Parliament today through St. Stephen's entrance I noticed that the automatic screening apparatus had been removed. Everybody will appreciate that it is necessary to have those security booths intact, but when I inquired, the security people told me that they had removed them all because they had to lay a red carpet for the Queen on Friday. There is a strange language of priorities in this place when people can shift all the screening apparatus for several days to put down a red carpet. I suggest that it is high time the matter was looked into with a view to making sure that people coming into this place are effectively screened, that there is security and that red carpets are not regarded as being as important as security in the Houses of Parliament.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is usually the first who wishes to dispose of security in this place. I am sure that the House would wish to see a red carpet laid in Westminster Hall for the Queen's visit there on Friday. At the same time there must be a proper balance in terms of security. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has been the first to notice this matter and I shall take it up as soon as I leave the Chair.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Does the presence of a Scottish Office Minister show that there might have been a request for the Scottish Office to make a statement explaining on what basis it gave permission to Shell to sink a terminal structure with arsenic, cadmium and other nasties, which, like the oil sludge, will doubtless end up on the shores of my constituency?

Madam Speaker: Not to my knowledge. The Scottish Office Minister is here to deal with the House's business but he will doubtless have noted the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Helen Liddell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice on a question that relates to two different Departments. You will be aware of the outcry in the country about hospital closures, which has now been underscored by the work done by my right hon. Friend the shadow health spokesman, who today revealed that 304 hospitals have closed in Britain and that 34 of those are in Scotland—

Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Lady will appreciate, I cannot deal with policy matters. I can deal only with points of order that affect our Standing Orders and procedures, so perhaps she will come straight to those.

Mrs. Liddell: I seek your advice on how to proceed with getting a statement, not just from the Secretary of State for Health, given her coyness on these matters, but, as this relates to the closure of 34 hospitals in Scotland, from the Minister responsible for health in Scotland, who sits in another place.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady could do a number of things. She could ask the shadow Leader of the House to press for a statement; seek an Adjournment debate through me on a Wednesday or a weekday evening; or use the Order Paper for early-day motions or parliamentary questions.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: There are no further points of order now that I have given the answer requested by the hon. Lady. She asked for my advice and I have given my best advice.

Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I, too, should be grateful for your advice on how to proceed. A report in today's edition of The Times highlights the fact that an all-party group of Back Benchers has produced a draft report for the Transport Select Committee which says that, despite the Government's arguments to the contrary, subsidy will still be needed for at least a decade if the railways are privatised. As the Department of Transport consistently hides behind commercial confidentiality to avoid answering those issues—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows full well that that is a matter not for me but for the Committee. I never comment on newspaper reports—it is very foolish so to do.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask for your support because I am worried about the growing habit in the House, which is a grave discourtesy to yourself and the Chair: the continuing inability of Ministers and others on the Front Bench to address the Chair. It happens not only on the Floor of the House but in Committee. Many of us are worried about the new habit of referring not to Her Majesty's Opposition or Her Majesty's Government but only to the names of the political parties of those


concerned. If that is to be so, are we now to abandon any reference to the Government and refer to them by their doubtful title of "the Conservative party"?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady is a long-standing and respected Member of the House. She is quite right. I find it very disagreeable when hon. Members refer to political parties. They should refer to Her Majesty's Government or Opposition.

Mr. George Foulkes: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I must be allowed to answer one point at a time.
The hon. Lady is correct, too, to say that when Ministers and others appear at the Dispatch Box, they often turn to and answer the person concerned, believing it to be polite. They should speak through the Chair because, not only do I want them to be heard through the microphone but there is the occasional handsome face which I should like to see. I am pleased that the hon. Lady has raised this matter. It is one of the more genuine points of order, which I see is sparking off many new ones.

Mr. Gallie: rose—

Madam Speaker: I hope that this is a new point and does not relate to Scottish health.

Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Having listened to the advice given to the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), I, too, wish to register concern. What advice can you give me with respect to finding out how much money has been transferred in Scotland from the health service to local authorities for community care?

Madam Speaker: I refer to my earlier answer to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) has left. She raised a point of order with you and quickly went out of the Chamber. When hon. Members rise to speak on matters in which they have an interest, they have to declare it, but the hon. Lady did not declare her interest on that point of order. Would it not be a courtesy to the House for hon. Members who are sponsored by unions to make that clear when they are raising points of order?

Madam Speaker: The House has never required hon. Members when they ask questions—and a point of order is a method of asking a question—to declare an interest. But I must say, on points of order, that there are far too many of them and that most of them—99.9 per cent. of them—are bogus points of order, disingenuous points of argument, points of frustration and points of politics. I ask hon. Members, before they raise points of order in future, to make sure that they are raising genuine points of order. I hope that that has been a shot across the bow of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).

Mr. Foulkes: Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. I hesitate to rise on a point of order, but earlier my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said that today is a bank holiday in Scotland. Manifestly it is not one for everybody but, seriously, there is a great deal of confusion in Scotland and, indeed, in the whole United Kingdom, about how and by whom bank holidays are designated. That creates many problems for conditions of service. I seek your advice on to whom to direct this question, because it is not clear who is responsible for the total chaos and confusion over bank holidays.

Madam Speaker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman the person who is not responsible: the Speaker of this House. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put a question down, he might seek the advice of the Table Office, which is always sound.

Orders of the Day — Children (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 6

REFERRAL OR REMISSION TO CHILDREN'S HEARING ON CONVICTION

'.—(1) In section 173 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (reference or remission to children's hearing where child guilty of an offence: solemn proceedings) for subsections (1) to (3) there shall be substituted—

"(1) Where a person who is charged with an offence and pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, that offence—

(a) is a child who is not subject to a supervision requirement; or
(b) is aged sixteen years or over and is subject to a supervision requirement,

the court on that plea or finding may—

(i) instead of making an order, remit the case to the Principal Reporter to arrange a children's hearing to dispose of the case; or
(ii) request the Principal Reporter to arrange a children's hearing for the purpose of obtaining their advice as to the treatment of the child.

(2) Where a child who is charged with an offence and pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, that offence—

(a) is aged under sixteen years; and
(b) is subject to a supervision requirement,

the court dealing with the case if it is—

(i) the High Court, may; and
(ii) if it is the sheriff court, shall,

request the Principal Reporter to arrange a children's hearing for the purpose of obtaining their advice as to the treatment of the child.
(3) Where a court has obtained the advice of a children's hearing in pursuance of paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) above or of subsection (2) above, the court, after consideration of the advice received from the children's hearing may, as it thinks proper, itself dispose of the case or remit the case as mentioned in paragraph (i) of the said subsection (1).".

(2) In section 372 of that Act (reference or remission to children's hearing where child guilty of an offence: summary proceedings) for subsections (1) to (3) there shall be substituted—

"(1) Where a person who is charged with an offence and pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, that offence—

(a) is a child who is not subject to a supervision requirement; or
(b) is aged sixteen years or over, and who is subject to a supervision requirement,

the court on that plea or finding may—


(i) instead of making an order, remit the case to the Principal Reporter to arrange a children's hearing to dispose of the case; or
(ii) request the Principal Reporter to arrange a children's hearing for the purpose of obtaining their advice as to the treatment of the child.

(2) Where a child who is charged with an offence and pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, that offence and—

(a) is aged under sixteen years; and
(b) is subject to a supervision requirement,

the court dealing with the case if it is—

(i) the High Court, may; and
(ii) if it is the sheriff court, shall,

request the Principal Reporter to arrange a children's hearing for the purpose of obtaining their advice as to the treatment of the child.

(3) Where a court has obtained the advice of a children's hearing in pursuance of paragraph (ii) of subsection (1) above or of subsection (2) above, the court, after consideration of the advice received from the children's hearing may, as it thinks proper, itself dispose of the case or remit the case as mentioned in paragraph (i) of the said subsection (1).".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 201 to 206 and 215.

Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the light of earlier exchanges, I should say that this is a serious point of order. It relates to the fact that the Government tabled, at the close of business on Thursday night, some 43 pages of amendments and new clauses to the Bill, which is now on Report.
The Government may have been close to being in order in doing that, but it cannot be good for the House that 43 pages of amendments and new clauses are submitted at 10 o'clock on a Thursday night. A number of those amendments, but not all of them, may relate to commitments that were given in Committee, but it cannot be right for the Opposition, and especially the Scottish Opposition, to be faced with 43 pages of amendments on a Thursday night and then have to plough through them. That must be getting close to being an abuse of the House.
I make this point of order in all seriousness, because this is a special Bill, which is widely welcomed throughout Scotland. It is long overdue and we welcome it. Not only that, it is a Bill for which the Opposition made a special concession to the Government by agreeing to have the Second Reading in the Scottish Grand Committee and consequently saving Government time. It is therefore all the more objectionable—I hope that you will agree with this, Madam Speaker—that the Government should treat the House in such a way, and make life so uncomfortable for Opposition Members who are concerned about and deeply interested in the issues raised by the Bill, by tabling so many amendments and new clauses at the last conceivable moment.

Mr. James Wallace: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. During the Committee stage, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, in an effort, no doubt, to be helpful to the Committee, said that he would take away and consider a range of issues. The difficulty with the amendments having been tabled so late is that it is only after they have been tabled that we have been able to identify the issues on which consideration was promised but about which nothing has been done. By that stage, it was too late to table amendments to raise the matters today on Report.
There has been an effort to ensure that we go forward on a non-partisan basis, but our patience is starting to stretch a bit. I know that the issues are complex, but I would have hoped that if they were that complex, even this debate could have been delayed until another day—


perhaps to a day that was not a Scottish bank holiday—when we could have considered the issues further after the Government had had time to table amendments.

Madam Speaker: Does the Minister wish to respond?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In an effort to be helpful in this matter, may I say that many of the amendments arose out of representations made by Opposition Members in Committee. In line with the precedent of the English Children Bill, to which there was an enormous number of amendments, genuine efforts were made to meet those representations. However, the matters were complex in detail, although not controversial.
There are, of course, other provisions that will, no doubt, be further amended in the other place and there will be further debates in the Commons. If Opposition Members feel that there are substantive issues that require further consideration, the House will, I have no doubt, have a further opportunity to consider them in due course. Most of the amendments meet points raised in Committee and are a response to concerns and requests from Opposition Members.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I cannot allow a debate to follow points of order. I am concerned about the matter because I am aware that in trying to be helpful and generous, the Minister gave a number of commitments in Committee. However, I realise how extremely unhelpful it has been to Opposition Members to have the amendments tabled so late. They have not been able to make a full appraisal or take full account of the amendments in conjunction with the Bill. The Minister has tried to be helpful, but he has not been as helpful as he might have been. I am sure that he has taken note of that, as we all have. This is a lesson to be learnt for the future.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The new clause would amend the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to provide a facility for the courts to refer the cases of certain children who have pleaded guilty or who have been found guilty of an offence directly to the hearings system for disposal. It is considered that the children's hearings system is genuinely better placed to deal with such offenders.
Sections 173 and 372 of the Criminal Procedures (Scotland) Act 1975 have the effect that the court cannot make a direct referral. Many courts seek the advice of the hearing and only then dispose of the case or refer it again to the hearing for disposal. This introduces delay into the system and causes inconvenience to the courts, the hearings system and the child. The new clause would allow the court, in appropriate cases, to refer the child's case directly to the reporter for disposal by a children's hearing.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Can the Minister explain why, in proposed subsections (2)(i) and (2)(ii), the High Court has a degree of discretion which is denied to the sheriff court? Is the reason the severity of the offence presumably dealt with by the former?
There is a huge mass of new clauses and amendments. Has the Minister tabled the amendments he promised on Friday 21 April during the Report stage of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill? He promised that he would either table amendments on Report or see that they were tabled in the other place.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The point is simply that the principal reporter can arrange a children's hearing for the purpose of obtaining its advice on the treatment of the child. The new clause would give the court the power to refer the case directly to the reporter in certain circumstances, which is a safeguard, makes for more efficiency and is generally in the interests of children.
Clause 59 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill provides powers for the Secretary of State to provide 100 per cent. funding for 16 and 17-year-olds subject to supervision requirements. The clause provides for a simplified means of disposal and improves the interface between the courts and the children's hearings system.
Amendments Nos. 201 to 206 and 215 introduce various changes to ensure that the references in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 are brought into line with the provisions of the Bill.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I should like to ask the Minister a couple of brief questions, one of which has already been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). In new clause 6(2), why is it stipulated that
the High Court, may; and
(ii) if it is the sheriff court, shall, request the Principal Reporter to arrange a children's hearing"?
Equally serious cases come before both, so it is not clear why the distinction has been made.
Why have the district courts not been mentioned in the new clause? Most of the crimes likely to be committed in Scotland come before district courts, so it is surprising that the new clause does not mention them.

Dr. Godman: I asked the Minister the same question earlier: why does the High Court have a discretion that is denied to the sheriff court? My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is also right to ask why the district courts are not mentioned. Is the
advice as to the treatment of the child
referred to in subsection (2) of the new clause analogous to a social report of the type sometimes asked for by a judge or sheriff?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can answer both points. First, the High Court "may" because the cases referred to it will in all likelihood be considered more serious. Secondly, I shall examine the point about the district courts not having been included. If there is merit in the point, we can insert it later in the passage of the Bill.
As the hon. Gentleman knows very well—his wife has played a leading role as a social worker—the role of reporter is different from that of a social worker. He, of course, is independent and has to make an independent report to the court—[Interruption]. I see that Opposition Members are amused to note that I have the information ready to hand. The reasoning behind the precise wording of the new clause is that it repeats the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act.

Mrs. Fyfe: It is hardly an answer to say that this simply repeats the wording of existing legislation. This was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform the law on children. To say, furthermore, that the High Court generally deals with far more serious cases does not answer the point either. No matter how serious a case may be, it would still seem necessary to request the principal reporter to arrange a children's hearing so that advice can be given about the treatment of the child. Even in the worst cases at the High Court, surely such advice would need to be sought.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It depends on the circumstances of the case. If the child were involved in a murder inquiry, the gravity of the case would be such that it would properly come before the High Court.
The new clause enables the courts to refer the cases of certain young people who have offended direct to the children's hearing for disposal. We think that that is a sensible provision which complements the provision in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to provide for such young people non-custodial disposal, which attracts 100 per cent. funding from the Scottish Office. I believe that that too is generally welcomed; it discharges the undertaking in the White Paper "Scotland's Children", to enable children's hearings to deal with certain young people aged 16 and 17 for whom full criminal justice disposals are not appropriate.
If the child has been involved in a murder investigation or a serious crime, of course he will not fit into that category. I understand that that is why "may" has been used in that context.

Mr. Phil Gallie: New clause 21 was discussed in Committee during the 13th sitting on 6 March. On that occasion we talked of supplementary secure units and suggested that the courts, especially sheriff courts, should have discretion to use such units without reference to children's panels. Does not new clause 6 cut across the objectives behind new clause 21? Does it not conflict with the sympathetic words of my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are not now discussing new clause 21. I note what my hon. Friend has said and no doubt we shall return to his point later in our debates.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 8

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS BY PERSONS WHO ARE THEMSELVES CHILDREN

'.—(1) In paragraph (a) of section 14(1) of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 (duty of father and mother to give information of particulars of birth), for the words "father or mother of the child" substitute "child's father or mother (whether or not they have attained the age of sixteen years)".
(2) Where, at any time after the coming into force of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 but before the coming into force of subsection (1) above, a person mentioned in the said paragraph (a) who had not at that time attained the age of sixteen years purported to fulfill the duty mentioned in the said section 14(1), he shall be presumed to have had legal capacity to fulfill that duty.
(3) In section 18 of the said Act of 1965 (registration of birth of child born out of wedlock), after subsection (2) add—

"(3) A person under the age of sixteen years has legal capacity—

(a) to make a request, declaration or statutory declaration under subsection (1), or (2)(b) above if, in the opinion of the registrar; or
(b) to make an application under subsection (2)(c) above if, in the opinion of the sheriff,

that person understands the nature of the request or, as the case may be, of the declaration, statutory declaration or application; and without prejudice to the generality of this subsection a person twelve years of age or more shall be presumed to be of sufficient age and maturity to have such understanding.".
(4) Where, at any time after the coming into force of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 but before the coming into force of subsection (3) above, a person who had not at that time attained the age of sixteen years made a request, declaration, statutory declaration or application mentioned in subsection (1), or (2) of the said section 18 in relation to a child in respect of whose birth an entry was consequently made under the said subsection (1) in a register of births, or as the case may be under the said subsection (2) in the Register of Corrections etc., the person shall be presumed to have had legal capacity to make the request, declaration, statutory declaration, or application in question.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 141 to 143.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I commend the new clause. Its purpose is to ensure that parents who are under the age of 16 years will have the necessary legal capacity to fulfil their duty under the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 to register their child. The clause is required because doubts have arisen whether after the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 a person under the age of 16, who is the father or mother of a child, has the legal capacity to register the birth of the child or to have his or her name entered in the register of births. It is clearly desirable that such doubts should be removed as soon as possible so as to ensure that accurate details about the birth of children can be entered in the register of births, which may have been given by persons under 16 since the 1991 Act.
The clause also has the effect of validating any entry in the register of births that may have been made by a person under 16 years of age since the 1991 Act. We do not wish to encourage parenthood in persons so young but we recognise that it happens. The aim behind the clause is to avoid compounding the difficulties by not allowing such young parents to meet their duty under the 1965 Act.
The clause meets the concerns of the registrar general, who is anxious to ensure that the register of births is as complete and accurate as possible. These provisions will apply retrospectively so as to make lawful all registrations by under-aged parents for the avoidance of doubt.
Amendments Nos. 141 to 143 make it clear that an application for the re-registration of a birth, or for a change of name, may be made by a person aged under 16 years. The amendments make it clear that such applications since the 1991 Act are valid.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 9

WELFARE OF CERTAIN CHILDREN IN HOSPITALS AND NURSING HOMES ETC.

'.—(1) Where a child is provided with residential accommodation by a person mentioned in subsection (3) below and it appears to the person that the child either—

(a) has had no parental contact for a continuous period of three months or more; or
(b) is likely to have no parental contact for a period which, taken with any immediately preceding period in which the child has had no such contact, will constitute a continuous period of three months or more,

the person shall (whether or not the child has been, or will be, so accommodated throughout the continuous period) so notify the local authority in whose area the accommodation is provided.
(2) A local authority receiving notification under subsection (1) above shall—

(a) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to enable them to determine whether the child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted while he is so accommodated; and
(b) consider the extent to which (if at all) they should exercise any of their functions under this Act with respect to the child.

(3) The persons are—

(a) any health board constituted under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;
(b) any national health service trust established under section 12A of that Act;
(c) any person carrying on—

(i) a private hospital registered under Part IV of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984; or
(ii) a nursing home in respect of which either he is registered under section 1(3) of the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 or exemption has been granted under section 6 or 7 of that Act.


(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a child has parental contact only when in the presence of a person having parental responsibilities in relation to him.
(5) A person duly authorised by a local authority may in the area of that authority, at all reasonable times, enter for the purposes of subsection (2) above or of determining whether there has been compliance with subsection (1) above any such place as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii) of subsection (3)(c) above and may for those purposes inspect any records or registers relating to that place; and subsections (2A) to (2D) and (4) of section 6 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (exercise of powers of entry and inspection) shall apply in respect of a person so authorised as they apply in respect of a person duly authorised under subsection (1) of that section.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause provides a further element of child protection that we consider entirely relevant to a children Bill. It relates to children who are accommodated in health care establishments for lengthy periods and who for various reasons appear to have had no contact with parents or people with parental responsibilities for them for three months or more.
I believe that the chances of children finding themselves in such a situation are remote. The links between hospitals and social workers are strong. In many instances, hospitals have dedicated social workers.
If, however, there is any chance of a child being abandoned or neglected by his or her parents within the health care system, it is right that we should take steps to deal with the matter. That we have done with the clause,

which will ensure that if a child has not had contact with parents or those with parental responsibilities for three months, the health board, nursing home or a person operating a private hospital will be required to inform the social work department, which will take steps to enable it to determine whether the child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted. The social work department will also consider the extent to which it should exercise any of its functions under the Act, with respect to the child.
I commend the new clause to the House as a small but useful further safeguard for children.

4 pm

Mrs. Fyfe: A couple of questions also arise out of new clause 9, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer at once. First, the White Paper promised to get children out of long-stay hospital. Can the Minister tell us today when that happy day might arise? Secondly, we welcome the fact that the Minister has, in subsection (4) of the new clause, taken up the point that was made in Committee—that parental contact should not only be a matter of telephoning and sending letters to the child but should be physical presence—but the way in which it is worded means that such a contact could literally be for just a minute, with an infrequent visiting time and long times between visits. That hardly seems an adequate way to respond to the criticism of the Bill. Will he have a further think about subsection (4) before the Bill finally comes to a conclusion?

Dr. Godman: I welcome the new clause, but I would like to ask the Minister—if I can catch his ear for about 10 seconds—just a couple of questions. If the child is incapacitated in a hospital, would it be the hospital social worker who would take on responsibility? I know that we are talking about only a few cases, but if a child is in a private home, would he or she simply be assigned, or consigned, to the local social work area team? I think that the period of three months is reasonable enough, but what about the child whose single parent is incapacitated, who stays in a hospital? Where the parent is unable for entirely legitimate reasons to visit the child in hospital, what safeguards are given to her?
The Minister is racing through these new clauses so quickly. I think that it is only right and proper that we ask him such questions. With reference to the questions that I have asked him, it would have been helpful if he and his officials had provided us with notes on the new clauses and amendments.
Also, what of the mother who is incapacitated and cannot visit her child in hospital? What safeguards does she have in those circumstances in relation to the specified period of three months?

Dr. John Reid: Like most hon. Members, from both sides of the House, I welcome the measures that have been introduced in the new clause. During the Minister's explanation of the new clause, he emphasised the need for particular care when a child is suffering—presumably in a long-term institution—from bad health or is shown to be socially deprived, in the sense of a lack of parents. My one worry is why it has taken us so long to fill that gap, to plug that loophole. What was the position up until now? Was it possible under similar


legislation for a child thus placed to have gone for a considerable period in ill health and also be deprived of the social support of parents or guardians?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should reply in relation to the White Paper, as it addresses the points that have been expressed. The requirement for the removal of a child who does not need to be in a long-stay hospital has, I understand, now been met.
I am quite happy to look at the terms of subsection (4). It is perfectly well drafted, but I will examine it and give considered reflection to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).
Hospital social workers would be involved. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised the issue of a mother who was incapacitated; I believe, from my experience as a Member of Parliament, that social work departments respond positively and sensibly whenever they can in such circumstances.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 10

INQUIRIES INTO MATTERS AFFECTING CHILDREN.

'. After section 6A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 there shall be inserted—
"Local authority inquiries into matters affecting children

6B.—(1) Without prejudice to section 6A(1) of this Act, a local authority may cause an inquiry to be held into their functions under this Act, or any of the enactments mentioned in section 5(1B) of this Act, in so far as those functions relate to children.
(2) The local authority may, before an inquiry under this section is commenced, direct that it be held in private; but where no such direction is given, the person holding the inquiry may if he thinks fit hold it, or any part of it, in private.
(3) Subsections (2) to (6) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (powers in relation to local inquiries) shall apply in relation to an inquiry under this section as they apply in relation to a local inquiry under that section, so however that, for the purposes of the application, any reference in those subsections to a Minister shall be construed as a reference to the local authority and any reference to an officer of his Department as a reference to an officer of that authority.
(4) The expenses incurred by a local authority in relation to an inquiry under this section (including such reasonable sum as the authority may determine for the services of any of their officers engaged in the inquiry) shall, unless the authority are of the opinion that those expenses should be defrayed in whole or in part by them, be paid by such party to the inquiry as they may direct; and the authority may certify the amount of the expenses so incurred.
(5) Any sum certified under subsection (4) above and to be defrayed in accordance with a direction under that subsection shall be a debt due by the party directed and shall be recoverable accordingly.
(6) The local authority may make an award as to the expenses of the parties at the inquiry and as to the parties by whom such expenses shall be paid.".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 200 and 216.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The new clause would confer on the local authority a specific power to

hold social work inquiries into children's issues. It would enable social work of concern relating to such issues to be investigated locally and in a credible way, removing the need for a full-scale inquiry to be conducted by the Secretary of State.
The powers are not intended to be used as a first resort; such inquiries are not designed to be undertaken lightly, but are meant rather to complement other measures available to authorities such as local inspection, management, consultation and informal investigations. Guidance will be issued to remind local authorities of those alternative options.
Amendment No. 200 would ensure that such an inquiry could be held without prejudice to the Secretary of State's power to hold his own inquiry under section 6A, and amendment No. 216 makes minor amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.

Mr. Wallace: If the proposed provision had been in place in 1991, would it have been for the local authority itself to set up an inquiry into the events surrounding the removal of nine children in my constituency, rather than for Lord Clyde to set up a judicial inquiry? That appears to be one possible consequence of the new clause, and, if it is, important considerations are involved.
As is well known, one of the issues involved in the case to which I have referred was the action of the council's own social work department. Whatever the nature of a case, however, and whatever the eventual outcome of action by a social work department, I do not think it satisfactory that the council involved should be responsible for initiating an inquiry.
Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. If the initiative for such an inquiry came from a body whose officers and employees were closely involved in the matter to be scrutinised by that inquiry—however independent and distinguished the person appointed to conduct it—many might feel that it would not be as rigorously independent as was warranted by the circumstances.
Costs are important as well. The new clause looks to me like an effort to offload costs from the Scottish Office to local authorities in the event of a repetition of the circumstances surrounding Lord Clyde's inquiry. On that occasion, the Scottish Office underwrote most of the costs—certainly those incurred by the local authority—and provided assistance with some of the legal costs of people with a particular interest in the inquiry, but it was a hard-won fight.
If such inquiries are to achieve what they set out to achieve, they will often cost money. I can imagine the impact and the possible ramifications in my constituency if people had been told that they must pay extra council tax to finance that inquiry: although everyone considered the inquiry necessary, many Scottish local authorities are relatively small, and the burden would have been considerable.
My final point relates to subsection (6), which says:
The local authority may make an award as to the expenses of the parties at the inquiry and as to the parties by whom such expenses shall be paid.
Discretion is pretty well unfettered. If parents are dissatisfied with what happened and the way in which social workers or other local authority employees have dealt with their children, and if they ask for an inquiry and one is granted, the council could say to them, "You


have got to pay for it too." That is not a satisfactory outcome. It may inhibit some people from asking for an inquiry that they believe is necessary.
I am uncomfortable with the new clause. A much greater explanation than the purely technical one given by Minister is required.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has raised some important matters, especially in relation to Lord Clyde's inquiry. I support what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for a more comprehensive explanation of the new clause's implementation.
The Minister talked about guidance given to councils on the holding of such inquiries. I remind him, if he needs reminding, that the Bill will become an Act of Parliament in the near future, and that, shortly afterwards, social work departments as we know them will be abolished and scattered. The new social work departments—and, more important, social work committees that will be set up by the new authorities—will need comprehensive guidance, especially in relation to new clause 10.
Less than 20 per cent. of the new members in the new Inverclyde unitary authority are regional councillors. Hence, some 15 per cent. or more have no experience in relation to the creation and implementation of social work policies, procedures and practices. I do not know what the case is in Aberdeen, but in Glasgow fewer than 20 of the new councillors, out of a total of 83, are regional councillors. Again, the majority of those councillors, unless they are ex-social workers, will have no experience in these matters.
On Friday 21 April, during the Report stage of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill—I refer to column 443—the Minister promised that the Government would table amendments on the assessment of disabled children's needs. I have experience of ships draughtsmanship, but not much of parliamentary draftsmanship. I should have thought, however, that new clause 10 could be amended in another place to take on board that promise. Does the Minister intend to amend new clause 10 to achieve adequate protection for disabled children?

Mr. Robert Hughes: I apologise for missing the introduction to the new clause. The Bill seems to be moving rapidly apace. I have no intention of delaying the Report stage. I am, however, somewhat concerned about new clause 10 and how it will operate. We have all had experience in our constituencies of the particular difficulties in relation to the abuse of children. People find the crime of child abuse so impossible to comprehend that, instead of a presumption of innocence, there is a presumption of guilt. Once an allegation of child abuse is levied against a family or an individual, they are often damned for ever and must bear the consequences.
I do not want to go into the detail of the case in the city of Aberdeen, partly because it would take too long, but also because it may awaken memories in the city that are best not awakened. However, I can say that a child was taken into care who then made very strong allegations of sexual abuse against a number of families with whom she had been in contact. There was one incontrovertible fact—the child had been badly abused from an early age. What was less clear, certainly in the initial stages, was who had carried out that extensive abuse over a long period.
4.15 pm
The social work department felt it necessary to lay charges against six different families, and to take all the children of those families into care immediately, at 7 o'clock in the morning. By the Tuesday of the following week, all the children had been returned home, but it took almost two years before the charges against the six families were finally dropped.
Those families were devastated. In some cases, marriages split up; in others, people were so demoralised that they became alcoholics. I understand that, even today, people in buses that travel through Aberdeen and pass a house belonging to one of the falsely—as it turns out—accused families say, "That's where those bloody child molesters live." A charge of child abuse can have serious repercussions. Of course, I am not suggesting that, if there are suspicions of child abuse, they should be withheld, but inquiries need to be conducted with some care.
When one of the six families first contacted me, I made a private approach to a counsellor in the region, who was sympathetic and who knew all the background to the case. I wanted an internal inquiry, so that I could at least hear the side of the social workers involved. It was not possible to have a rational discussion. I was told, "It's a witches' coven, with ritual satanic abuse." It became clear that there could be no private local inquiry on which I could rely.
I approached the then Under-Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—I have rather lost track of where he is now, but that is neither here nor there. I do not want to make any cheap points. Coincidentally, I approached the right hon. Gentleman at the time of what became known as the Orkney child abuse case, which will be uppermost in the memory of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). He will know that there was a strong demand for a public inquiry in that case. I believed that my case was equally deserving of a public inquiry.
There were two differences between the cases—in the Orkney case, the people concerned were, generally speaking, middle class; they were certainly articulate. I make no complaint about that. They were able to put together a network of people throughout the United Kingdom to support their claim for a public inquiry. With my case, the people concerned came from six ordinary working-class families. I am sad to say that the only person on whom they could rely to articulate their case was me. Perhaps I failed them in not putting their case strongly enough. There was certainly no question of a public inquiry in that case, nor was there any question of it being conjoined with the Orkney inquiry, which is what I had sought.
I am almost sorry that I have raised the case again today, because I do not want it widely reported in the city of Aberdeen. The families concerned are now, with great difficulty, beginning to settle down.
The issue of inquiries being held either in private or in public is very serious. I share to some extent the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that the new unitary authorities have no experience of social work, but it must be remembered that, when we set up the social work departments, we had no experience, either. Although the new social work departments will be a different size, I


strongly urge my colleagues in the unitary authorities to make certain that there is a properly qualified—I think that this is already in the Bill—

Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hughes: Of course.

Dr. Godman: I hope that all the social workers employed in the regional and island authorities are re-employed by the unitary authorities. The point that I was making was that, if the Minister is to issue guidelines to social workers—to chief social work officers—he should also issue guidelines to councillors who are unfamiliar with the mass of legislation which has been passed since 1974.

Mr. Hughes: I do not disagree at all with my hon. Friend, but I was pointing out to him that I was a councillor in the city of Aberdeen following the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, when social work departments were set up. Those of us who were lay members of authorities in those days had very little experience—well, we had no experience of social work departments—although some of us gained experience through the health and welfare committees.
I agree that since then a great deal has happened, so I hope that my colleagues in the unitary authorities—as I said, I believe that the Bill requires only that the director of social work is a qualified officer—will appoint not only a qualified director of social work, but a highly qualified director of education, and that the councillors will take an active interest in social work matters.
With regard to matters in the new clause and to other matters surrounding social work, the Scottish Office certainly ought to hold a series of seminars, at which experienced councillors who know social work and those who have never worked in the area because of the split of functions may share their experiences.
The ability to obtain proper advice—legal advice, if necessary—representation and expenses to enable people to put a case is of absolute importance. I frankly do not mind who pays for that, as long as the access of people who feel aggrieved to proper legal advice is not impeded or inhibited in any way.
When the Under-Secretary makes his winding-up speech on the new clause, I hope that he will address in a little more detail the circumstances in which he believes proceedings should be held in private and in which they should be held in public. There is certainly a balance to be struck between publicity, which is necessary to show that nothing is being hidden, and privacy, which is necessary to try to protect people against whom false allegations may be made. I hope that such false allegations—or mere allegations, since they are proved false or otherwise only once the investigation is completed—will always be taken seriously.
In the case to which I referred—I shall finish on this note just to show how serious the matter is—allegations were made not only against the six families, but against a senior social worker and a general practitioner. I found it particularly reprehensible that the allegations made against the working-class families were investigated, but not a single question was asked of the GP or the senior social worker; they were apparently above reproach. Yet we know from bitter experience that, in some places which are regarded as safe for children, such as residential

homes, people have been employed whose abuse of the children in their care has been absolutely disgraceful and terrible.
I hope that we shall not take the attitude that if people are professionals they should be—necessarily—free from suspicion. However, we should not say the alternative. We should not say that, because an allegation has been made, it must be true.
I hope that the possibility of inquiries under new clause 10 will open up the scope for proper investigations, so that the interests of the children, which must always be paramount, will be protected. The interests of children are not always necessarily met by an investigation. There are sometimes innocent third-party children.
I hope that the Minister will tell us a little more about how the procedure will work, to ensure that the interests of children are properly looked at and to ensure that the interests of families are not destroyed because of prejudice in respect of particular allegations.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has said, new clause 10 reiterates a theme that I raised several times in Committee. That theme is the protection of other persons and third persons involved in allegations of child abuse. I am not certain whether the proposal will deal with the problems.
I have no confidence in internal investigations by social work departments. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, I have personal knowledge of a case which was brought to me by a person who was wrongly accused of abuse. The matter was pursued by the social work department, and it held an internal inquiry based on its various methods of operating.
That internal inquiry amounted to an examination of whether the procedures had been followed. No one challenged the basic evidence on which the charge was brought. That was the issue. People do not worry too much about the procedures, but if the basic premise is wrong, it does not matter what procedures are followed: in the end, the result will be wrong. We could not have that issue challenged. At the end of the day, I received a perfunctory half-page letter saying that all was well, when clearly it was not. Like many others, I have no faith in internal procedures. I have tabled amendments in an attempt to deal with that problem.
With regard to new clause 10, we would like an undertaking from the Minister that he will at least consider tabling two amendments in another place. The first amendment should state not that the inquiry may be held in private, but that it will be held in public unless the local authority gives a good reason for not doing that.
The second amendment should state that there must be an independent person running the inquiry, not a member of the social work department. If the latter is the case, there will be a social work department investigation into the procedures and not into the facts. Without those two criteria, involving some form of independence and a presumption towards public hearings, the proposal will be of limited value.

Mr. George Foulkes: I join my colleagues in welcoming new clause 10. I want to comment briefly on the circumstances in relation to the Ayrshire child abuse case, which has received an inordinate amount of publicity. My view


might differ somewhat from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), but it is certainly not diametrically opposed to it, because I agree with much of what he said.
In relation to the Ayrshire child abuse case, I have great sympathy with the problem facing social workers when they are confronted with allegations of child abuse. For example, if a mother, who may be hysterical, reports child abuse and, after some examination and investigation, the social workers shrug it off and say, "No, no, this woman is hysterical. No child abuse is taking place," and it is subsequently found that child abuse has taken place, those social workers are likely to be, and in some cases in the past have been, pilloried by the press, by the media and, on occasion, by Parliament, for not following up those allegations.
With regard to the Ayrshire case, where social workers have pursued the allegations, have believed them and have taken some action, the press obviously felt that they knew a great deal more than the social workers, the medical people, the sheriff and everyone else involved. The press make their judgment and decide that they are absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North knows, the media never get it wrong.
The media decide that no abuse has taken place, and they pillory the social workers in that instance as well. If social workers take action and are proved wrong, they are pilloried. If they do not take action and are proved wrong, they are pilloried. It is very difficult, as the Minister will know. He has great experience of such issues as a lawyer and as a parliamentarian. It is a difficult problem for social workers, and difficult decisions have to be made.
4.30 pm
In the case of Ayrshire, however, those decisions were made in the first instance by individual basic grade social workers, but in every instance they were reported right up the line to the senior social work managers. Of course, before any action could be taken, it had to be reported to the children's panel. The children's panel had to make a decision on the report from the reporter. In the Ayrshire child abuse case, the ultimate decision was made by Sheriff Neil Gow, after very careful thought and after hearing the children themselves.
It is quite astonishing that, after all that careful consideration by social workers, by members of the children's panel and by a sheriff who had gone into the matter in great detail, someone—in that case, it seemed to be only one person, in the press—who knew better than every one of them said that no abuse had taken place.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not want to pillory social workers. My hon. Friend and I are not in great disagreement in this matter, but he must realise that the initial charge on which the case is based is generally made by one person. That is rarely challenged. By the time it comes to the report of the children's panel, decisions are based on the initial report, which is often done by a fairly junior individual, yet that is taken as gospel and never challenged. That is where the problem lies.

Mr. Foulkes: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. If he looks at that case—there is voluminous paper that he can look at—he will see that it was not only questioned very seriously by the children's panel but corroborated by

two doctors. That might impress him a little more than the views of social workers. It also went to the sheriff, who tested the evidence very substantially. It went through very well tried and tested procedures.
Because the media made up their minds that the social workers were wrong, they harassed and threatened the social workers concerned. There was doorstepping of the social workers in the early morning—their lives were made an absolute misery. All the social workers had been concerned about were the interests of the children, protecting the children, and carrying out the job that was given to them by Parliament.
The media try to get everything into black and white—it is either right or wrong; it is either clearly proved or it is not clearly proved. I mean no disrespect to the Minister, but lawyers get the same perception; that everything is either right or wrong, and that it can be proved or disproved by evidence. I am afraid that in such cases it is much more difficult to prove.
In family circumstances where abuse may have taken place, the only witnesses are the children who have been abused or other members of the family who may themselves be children. It is very difficult to obtain evidence. It is certainly very difficult to prove something beyond a shadow of doubt. That is why the issue is very complicated. Social workers deserve our sympathy.
In the Ayrshire case, an independent inquiry was carried out. We are talking about inquiries by two outside members of staff of other local authorities. They came to the conclusion that the social workers in the case had acted in an honest way, without any collusion. They certainly said that there were some faults in practice. Of course matters are difficult, and practice is not easy. Advice and guidance are needed as experience develops, as we have more cases and social workers can talk to each other about them.
The social workers did not do everything perfectly—we know that—but they acted honestly and there was no collusion, yet the media are still persecuting those social workers. They are asking the Lord Advocate to take up a prosecution against them. I shall see the Lord Advocate later this week, to tell him that he should make it clear that there will be no prosecution of those social workers, who have been cleared by that independent inquiry, and that it is intolerable for the threat of prosecution to continue to hang over their heads.
I have a couple of questions which the Minister may be able to answer. I wrote what was, for me, a reasonable letter to the Secretary of State some weeks ago about the case, because I take it seriously and I am deeply concerned about the way in which the lives of social workers and their families have been affected. My letter contained a number of questions, but I have not yet had a reply from the Secretary of State. My assistants have contacted the Secretary of State's office to ask for a reply as soon as possible, and the Minister may be able to use his good offices to say when I will receive such a reply.
I am no expert in this matter, although I served on a social work committee in Lothian region many years ago and saw the reports on such cases. My wife was a member of a children's panel for some time, although she has had no dealings at all with the Ayrshire abuse case. I was on a children's panel advisory committee for some time, and chose the members of those panels in Lothian. However, I do not pretend to have any expertise on the matter at all.
As a result of the Ayrshire abuse case, I have had to try to understand some of the procedures, and that has caused me to ask one question. Is it compatible with the caring role of social workers for them also to be investigators in child abuse cases? It must be at the moment, because only the police and social workers—with their statutory role—can carry out that task.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) that I doubt whether doctors would be keen to take on the role, because it is very difficult, and there are no other obvious people to take it on. It is difficult for social workers, who have other responsibilities in communities and in society for supporting vulnerable people, to take on that investigative role.
My main concern is that we in Parliament should not jump to conclusions in relation to such cases. When a reporter phones a Member and explains what he understands to have happened, it is far too easy to accept that as gospel and say that it is disgraceful and that there ought to be an inquiry, and that the social workers ought to be charged. That is what has happened on occasion in the past.
In this instance, particular sections of the Scottish media have done themselves a great discredit by pressing in that way without looking at all the facts in a reasoned and objective way. I use this opportunity to call on the media to try to deal with these cases more sympathetically and to understand the dilemmas and difficulties for social workers and social work departments.
I make a final plea, and in this I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, who believes that the views of the children ought to be taken into account. It is easy enough to get the views of parents, but the views of the parents and of the children in child abuse cases will in some cases—by definition—not necessarily be the same. We must get the children's views, not only in an evidential way but also on what should happen to them in future. If different options are being considered for the future of the children, we must get their views.
Above all, we should not rush to an early judgment on the cases, which are very complicated. We must make sure that—wherever possible—the abuse cases which we know have taken place do not recur. The interests of the children who have been abused must be paramount on every occasion.

Mr. Gallie: In following the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I register some sympathy for the front-line social workers who were involved in the Ayrshire case. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that they had to make difficult decisions. The social workers were on a knife edge. They could have made an error if they had not taken into account the needs of the children. On the other hand, we ended up with a situation in which, for five years, the children were without their parents, and that gives me grave concern.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Sheriff Gow, but failed to acknowledge that other sheriffs were involved. For example, Sheriff Crozier found in another case a fortnight later, after the first cases were taken into account, that there was no case to answer. In those instances, the children went home with their parents. Then we had Sheriff Miller's findings. Here, I find a problem with the position in which the social workers were placed in those hearings. They were

left isolated. I wonder how much responsibility their masters in the regional social work department should have in the matter.
I also wonder what examination has been made of the managerial structures in the social work department. I do not believe that the problem—if there was a problem—lay with the front-line social workers. I think that it lay behind, with the management structure, but I am not entirely convinced. Perhaps the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley feels differently.

Mr. Foulkes: It is perhaps too easy to criticise the social work department. The inquiry that took place at Western house at the racecourse was unprecedented. The social work department was guilty only of not understanding the magnitude of the inquiry it faced and the strength of legal support, advice and representation that the parents would have. The inquiry turned into a far more legal investigation than the department had realised. It was entirely wrong that it did so. The QCs took it over and made it into a legal hearing, when it should have been much more informal. If the social work department was guilty of anything, it was guilty perhaps of innocence and of being caught unawares rather than of negligence.

Mr. Gallie: I am not sure that it was guilty of innocence. In my involvement in the case over several years, I was perhaps guilty of naivety, if Sheriff Miller was to be believed. I did not follow issues through. I took assurances from senior members of Strathclyde social work department. I have a nagging doubt now that perhaps I was wrong. I am still not convinced, either way, precisely where the truth lies. If the children had been believed, perhaps they would have been back with their parents at an earlier date, but that is another matter.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley has highlighted another difficult case in which there are many questions. It emphasises the overall difficulties of the issue.

Mrs. Fyfe: This brief debate on new clause 10 has demonstrated the difficulties that a Minister can get into by throwing down new clauses and amendments at the last minute without giving people time to consider them. The Minister can see for himself how many serious concerns have been raised even in the short space of time that we have had to examine the new clause. I want to ask him a few questions about that.
What advice has the Minister sought on the general content of the new clause? I for one am not entirely clear whether the inquiry mentioned in newsection 6B(1) is intended to be an inquiry into the conduct of a social work department under the Act, or into its functions as such. I am not sure whether the purpose is to criticise the functions or the way in which a department fulfilled those functions.
A key question was put at the start of the debate, which I do not want the House to lose sight of. Is the new clause an attempt to pass the buck from the Secretary of State to the local authorities for inquiries into cases such as Orkney? Let us remember that it cost more than £1 million to inquire into the Orkney case. That is a lot of anyone's money. For a small, new unitary authority, it could be an impossible amount of money to find to conduct an inquiry as fully as necessary.
The Orkney case was of interest and concern far beyond the bounds of Orkney or, indeed, Scotland. It hit international headlines. Therefore, it would seem unfair


and unreasonable to expect any local authority, especially one of the smaller new unitary authorities, to bear such a cost.
My last point, which I do not think any hon. Member has raised, relates to subsection (4) of the new clause, which refers to expenses being defrayed by such parties as the inquiry may direct. It is not clear what the Minister envisages by "such party". Could it mean parents? Could there be a circumstance in which parents were expected to pay the cost of an inquiry, which was necessary not only in the interests of the children for whom they had direct concern but in the wider public interest? Such an inquiry might seek to set a general principle on which to base the functions of social work departments.
If the Minister is to reassure the House that the new clause is not an effort to pass the buck, he must amend the new clause to make that clear.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We will take on board the points that have been made on drafting and look closely at the new clause in subsequent stages. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) raised the Ayrshire case. We have looked carefully into the case. I can well understand their concerns about it.
The procedures adopted for the proof re-hearing were in accordance with the framework set out in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. The reporter to the children's panel and the families were represented as parties to the proceedings. The social workers were called as witnesses and, as such, were not separately represented. Following the proof re-hearing, the Court of Session ordered the return home of the children, and appointed curators to oversee the process of their return.
I understand that Strathclyde regional council fully co-operated in the implementation of the court's decision. We are now looking carefully at Sheriff Miller's report to see what lessons can usefully be drawn for the future. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate commissioned some time ago guidance for social workers and police involved in the investigation of allegations of child abuse. They expect to receive those proposals shortly.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has just said. It is a step forward. As well as examining the outcome of the proof hearing at Western house, will he examine the procedure? As I said in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), it was a rather legalistic inquiry. It became intimidating for witnesses and created many problems. The witnesses were cross-questioned almost as if they were accused. The QCs—I know that the Minister is a distinguished lawyer—took over.
That is not necessarily the best procedure for such hearings, in which much of the information is obtained in an informal way, not the formal way that we understand for trials. Could the Minister have a look at that as well?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will look closely at the case in general to determine what lessons can be learned. I will take account of the hon. Gentleman's points.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked the relevant question whether the Orkney inquiry might have been handled differently if the new clause had been in place. It would have been possible under the new clause for a local inquiry to be held. However, the issues were of wide significance, and other local authorities were involved.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will certainly retain his inquiry powers. The background to the new clause is that, when the events with which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is so familiar took place, a review of the arrangements was ordered by the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). One of the principal conclusions of the review was that local authorities should properly be equipped with a specific power to hold social work inquiries.
The new clause would increase the options available where matters of concern arose. However, a full-scale inquiry by the Secretary of State, with its burdensome consequences, was hitherto regarded as the sole option. In some cases, in which the issues are primarily minor and local, it is perhaps more appropriate for the local authority to be involved.
It is certainly not the purpose of the new clause to offload the burden of the costs on to local authorities. It would be for local authorities to weigh up the costs in deciding whether to exercise their powers to hold an inquiry. We believe that local authorities would act responsibly to their electors.
I can tell the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that there is no intention to amend new clause 10 to provide for the assessment of disabled children. However, we shall amend the Bill as and where necessary to take account of the needs expressed in the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill for which the hon. Gentleman and I were present during a Friday debate.
In reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), I believe that the interests of children must be central in the determination of these matters. There is a need to save children added pain and trauma, and under the clause local authorities will have three possibilities to consider. They can decide whether the whole of an inquiry should be in private, whether part should be in private and part in public but with limits on the identification of children, or they can decide to have no inquiry at all.
The clause gives power to appoint an independent person to hold an inquiry, which need not be internal. I am also covering the points raised by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). Like the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, I have been a councillor on a social work committee. If I were still such a councillor, I would be inclined towards privacy.
Under the clause, I think that local authorities will use their powers responsibly. The essence of the matter is that there will be new powers for authorities to hold inquiries into matters related to children, and they will complement measures that are already available to them to deal with local problems. The powers will be available where the local nature of matters or problems make it inappropriate for the Secretary of State to hold a national inquiry.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Finance Act 1995.
Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Act 1995.
Civil Evidence (Family Mediation) (Scotland) Act 1995.
Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995.
Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Act 1995.

CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

New clause 11

CO-OPERATION BETWEEN AUTHORITIES

'.—(1) Where it appears to a local authority that an appropriate person could, by doing certain things, help in the exercise of any of their functions under this Part [Promotion of Children's Welfare By Local Authorities And By Children's Hearings etc.] of this Act, they may, specifying what those things are, request the help of that person.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, persons who are appropriate are—

(a) any other local authority;
(b) a health board constituted under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;
(c) a national health service trust established under section 12A of that Act; and
(d) any person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section;

and an appropriate person receiving such a request shall comply with it provided that it is compatible with their own statutory or other duties and obligations and (in the case of a person not a natural person) does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) was responsible for one of those Acts and I am glad to see him in his place.
The purpose of the new clause is quite clear: it is a response to issues that were raised in Committee and it seeks to ensure proper co-operation between the various service providers in addressing the needs of children. It achieves that by providing power for the local authority to approach appropriate persons when it appears to the local authority that such persons would be able to help the authority in the exercise of its functions under part II of the Bill.
Subsection (2) of the new clause states that the persons whom the authority can approach are: any other local authority, a health board, a national health service trust and any person authorised by the Secretary of State. Any person so approached is required to comply with the request, provided it is compatible with that person's statutory and other duties. The new clause should

encourage closer working among the various agencies and must be to the benefit of Scotland's children. I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Fyfe: The Opposition welcome the new clause, which responds to criticisms made in Committee.
I have a brief question. Paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) imply that persons who are not listed would be inappropriate. Surely the Minister does not mean that a local authority could not seek help from the Secretary of State. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not trying to evade such a responsibility, but will the Minister clarify that point?

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I, too, have a brief question on subsection (2). Why does it not include the recognition of registered voluntary organisations, which often do a great deal of work in providing for children, including those with special needs and disabilities who were referred to earlier? How does the Minister see voluntary organisations playing a role under this subsection?

Dr. Godman: I should like to add to the question asked by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). Voluntary organisations and charities play an important role in catering for the needs of many children. Will the Minister confirm that the definition in subsection (2)(d) embraces the voluntary organisations and charities that do such fine work in the care of children?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I see no reason why the Secretary of State should not give such authorisation. The Scottish Office will give guidance in due course on all these matters. It would be open to a local authority to apply to the Scottish Office for guidance on any point that might arise. The new clause does not require co-operation between departments of the same authority, because social work and housing will be the responsibility of a single authority after reorganisation. It clearly would not be appropriate to require under primary legislation a body to co-operate with itself. Under subsection (2)(d) voluntary organisations can be authorised. They play a strong and supportive role and we look forward to that continuing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 12

REMOVAL OF DUTY TO REPORT ON OPERATION OF CHILDREN ACT 1975

'. Section 105 of the Children Act 1975 (which among other things provides that every five years there shall be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State a report on the operation of such sections of that Act as are for the time being in force) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 208, 90, 209, 210 and 95.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This new clause and the associated amendments seek to repeal section 105 of the Children Act 1975, which requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament every five years a report on


the operation of the sections of the Act that are in force. As all the substantive provisions relating to adoption and custody have now been updated and incorporated in other legislation, the need to produce a report on the 1975 Act becomes redundant.
Amendment No. 208 seeks to add section 105 to the repeals schedule in the Bill. Amendment No. 90 makes various changes to section 51 of the Children Act and is required as a consequence of the Bill. It does so by setting out the revised subsection in its entirety. Amendments Nos. 209, 210 and 95 propose minor consequential amendments.

Mrs. Fyfe: As it has occurred to the Minister to repeal a section of the 1975 Act, why has it not crossed the mind of anyone in the Scottish Office to include provisions in the Bill to report on or monitor the operation of the clauses of this Bill? Such a request was resisted in Committee and I thought that the Minister had undertaken to consider how often such reports could be made. Has that matter been considered?

Dr. Godman: I should like to reinforce my hon. Friend's plea. As the new unitary authorities will implement this Bill, it is important for such reports to be presented to the House so that we can see how the Bill's provisions are being implemented by the new authorities.

Mr. Wallace: I was not entirely clear from the Minister's comments whether the provisions to which the statutory duty of reporting relate are being transferred to another Act. Is there still a duty to report, albeit under a different Act, or has it disappeared altogether? How many times in the past 20 years has the Secretary of State laid a quinquennial report before Parliament?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We discussed this matter at considerable length in Committee. We propose to monitor what happens by research, social work inspectorate reports, statistical surveys and other ways. We remain firmly of the view that regular reports are of limited value. If produced annually, they do not adequately reflect changing patterns of service provision, demographic changes and other such matters. Indeed, they can be something of a bureaucratic chore. However, we strongly believe in the need for specific research projects, the results of which will be and are published; the regular publication of statistical data; the preparation and publication of local plans for child health care services; and the ability of the social work services inspectorate to carry out necessary inspections. All those represent a more useful and realistic way to proceed in future. After four quinquennial reports and the extensive development of services, we believe that provision along those lines would serve no useful purpose. New clause 12 removes a provision for the preparation of reports, which was useful in its time.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 13

EFFECT OF ORDERS ETC. MADE IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for a prescribed order which is made by a court in England and

Wales or in Northern Ireland, if that order appears to him to correspond generally to an order of a kind which may be made under Part II of this Act or to a supervision requirement, to have effect in prescribed circumstances and for prescribed purposes of the law of Scotland as if it were an order of that kind or, as the case may be, as if it were a supervision requirement.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing—

(a) for a prescribed order made under Part II of this Act by a court in Scotland; or
(b) for a supervision requirement,

if that order or requirement appears to him to correspond generally to an order of a kind which may be made under any provision of law in force in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland, to have effect in prescribed circumstances and for prescribed purposes of the law of England and Wales, or as the case may be of Northern Ireland, as if it were an order of that kind.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) or (2)(a) above may provide for the order given effect for prescribed purposes to cease to have effect for those purposes, or for the purposes of the law of the place where the order was made, if prescribed conditions are satisfied.
(4) Where a child who is subject to a supervision requirement is lawfully taken to live in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland, the requirement shall cease to have effect if prescribed conditions are satisfied.
(5) Regulations under this section may modify any provision of—

(a) the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or this Act in any application which the Acts may respectively have, by virtue of the regulations, in relation to an order made otherwise than in Scotland;
(b) the Children Act 1989 or the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 in any application which those Acts may respectively have, by virtue of the regulations, in relation to an order prescribed under subsection (2)(a) above or to a supervision requirement; or
(c) the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 or the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 in any application which they may respectively have, by virtue of the regulations, in relation to an order so prescribed or to a supervision requirement.' — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]


Brought up, and read the First time.

5 pm

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 159 and 191.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The new clause and amendments are technical. I can explain them in greater detail if any hon. Member so wishes.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As I did not serve on the Standing Committee, I simply seek an assurance from the Minister that the new clause will end as quickly as possible the problems of cross-border custody. I hope that it covers that problem as there have been cases where court orders in England and Wales have either not been recognised in Scotland or the other way round. It is important that, where custody orders are granted, they are put into effect as speedily as possible so that the parent with custody gets the child back if it has been illegally taken across the border. If the Minister can assure me that the problem is covered in the new clause or elsewhere, I shall be happy to leave matters as they stand.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Clause 28, as drafted, does not wholly meet our objectives as it does not provide in all cases for the transfer of a child who moves to or


from another jurisdiction within the United Kingdom. It would allow the transfer of welfare cases but would not—this is the problem—include cases where the principal reason for the child being subject to a supervision requirement is that he or she has committed an offence. The new clause covers all the cases that could arise when a child moves. I hope that that meets the hon. Gentleman's point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

REASONABLE CHASTISEMENT

'.—(1) In any proceedings (whether criminal or civil) against a person for striking a child, it shall not be a defence that the person struck the child in the purported exercise of any parental right if he or she struck the child—

(i) with a stick, belt or other object; or
(ii) in such a way as to cause, or to risk causing, injury; or
(iii) in such a way as to cause, or to risk causing, pain or discomfort lasting more than a very short time.

(2) Any person who has care or control of a child but who does not have parental responsibilities or rights in relation to the child shall have no greater right than has a parent to administer corporal punishment to the child.
(3) Section 12(1) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 shall be amended by leaving out the words "assaults" and "assaulted".
(4) Section 12(7) of that Act is hereby repealed.'.—[Mr. George Robertson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
May I express a word of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and other Opposition Members who served on the Committee? I did not do so but I appreciate that this is a hugely important Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill undertook a huge amount of consultation and was backed up by a strong Committee, which added its force of argument to the points put forward.
I am sorry that it was necessary to break the unique consensus on the Bill earlier this afternoon by criticising the Government for the number of amendments that they tabled at such a late stage. I hope that Madam Speaker's reprimand will serve as a lesson to the Government.
This important new clause deals with the last remaining area where domestic violence is still legal in Scotland. The proposal in respect of chastisement and punishment of children in the family home is moderate, modest and reasonable, and should be accepted by the Government. It is not political or partisan and has no party background. It has been taken directly from the excellent and thorough report of the Scottish Law Commission on family law, which was published in 1992 and dealt with this subject in commendable detail. It reached a definitive conclusion that I should have thought the Government would accept without dispute.
The new clause is not prohibitionist and does not seek to prevent physical punishment of children in the family home. It is not absolutist and does not prohibit all forms of punishment. It is specific about the areas in which it seeks to protect children. It would not ban or criminalise parental control or diminish the right to administer reasonable physical punishment against children in the

home. There is a case for stopping all forms of physical punishment in the home but the new clause does not go that far and should not be portrayed as doing so. It sets out in explicit terms areas where a civilised society would want to protect its children. We therefore propose the new clause in the light of strong argument in its favour and in the hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will see the light and accept a change in the law.
It should be totally unacceptable for a child to be hit by a parent or anyone else with a cane, belt or whip. If the Government resist this necessary change to the law, they will be rightly condemned throughout Scotland. In addition, they should be forced to accept the full burden of responsibility and blame if even a handful of parents use the Government's attitude this afternoon to indulge in that form of violence.
The new clause seeks to clarify the law not only for parents and guardians but for the courts. That must be for the good of children and the criminal justice system.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Tripe.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) catcalls from a sedentary position. We all look forward to Mr. Eleven per cent. having an opportunity to speak later in the debate. We shall listen to any of his arguments that might conceivably be slightly more elevated than what he just shouted.
There is no reason why the Government should not accept the new clause, which is, after all, the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission. If they resist this valuable clarification of the law, they will leave a serious question mark over their true intentions.
Under the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, assaulting, ill-treating, neglecting or abandoning a child are criminal offences. Section 12(7) allows:
any parent, teacher, or other person having the lawful control … to administer punishment".
The prescription in law and the associated case law leave judges and sheriffs to decide what constitutes reasonable physical chastisement of children by parents and others. There is simply no legal precedent or generally accepted case on which judgments are based. That means that the law is confusing, with much disparity between the judgments of individual sheriffs of what they deem to be reasonable. That has, sadly, resulted in some parents who have inflicted fairly significant abuse on children—using belts, sticks and other implements in the name of physical punishment—being acquitted by the courts. That is why we believe that it is perfectly reasonable and sensible for the House to agree to the new clause and to give the guidance to the courts and to parents that they clearly want.
The new clause would offer more clarity for courts and for sheriffs. It would tidy up this unnecessarily loose area of legislation. We are not seeking to outlaw any form of physical punishment; we are simply providing clear legal parameters within which sheriffs can exercise their discretion.
The new clause has widespread support, from not only professionals and the Scottish Law Commission but public opinion, to which the Government should listen. If the Government tell the House that they will resist the new clause simply on the basis that the Children Act 1989, which applies to England and Wales, does not move into this territory and does not give this valuable


clarification, their response will be seen as feeble and inadequate by people in Scotland. The new clause would make it clear to parents and to everybody else in society that it is no longer acceptable to use sticks, belts and other implements to deal a violent blow in the cause of disciplining children. Adults would no longer be able to use the defence that they were exercising parental rights.
It is important when considering the case for the new clause and for setting out forms of punishment that are not acceptable for parents to use against children to look at the background to the Scottish Law Commission's conclusion. This is not some woolly, liberal, soft-soap measure that has come out of some enlightened working party; there is no possibility of caricaturing the proposal in that way. If the claim that a modest smack to the leg will be made illegal is used as an excuse for not moving in this direction, the House should listen carefully to the reasoning and the arguments of the Scottish Law Commission.
The commission advanced a number of arguments as the background to promoting a change in the law. It said:
If all corporal punishment is made unlawful there is less chance of violent abuse taking place. Parents will know where the line is drawn. There will be less chance of conduct which begins as chastisement ending up as violent abuse because the parent does not know his or her own strength or because the initial chastisement does not produce the desired response.
That was one of the clear arguments that the commission said could be used in favour of making the law much more definitive.
5.15 pm
A second key argument deployed by the commission was:
We should follow the lead taken by Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Austria.
The commission refers to an American assessment of the Swedish legislation, which reported:
The 1979 law is now taken for granted in Sweden. Whereas in 1981 parents reported 'thinking twice' before using any physical punishment, in 1988 parents simply say they do not use it.
That is the argument that we advance today.
Another powerful argument is available to the House in reaching a decision on the matter. I hope that Conservative Members do not feel that I am promoting the new clause in a partisan way or that there is a good argument for overriding their consciences; conscience may be in short supply among certain Conservative Members. I believe, however, that those who have read the Scottish Law Commission's report will have been affected by the arguments, especially by the one that the commission deploys in relation to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which was adopted by the General Assembly in November 1989. It says:
States must take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation while in the care of parents, legal guardians or any other person who has the care of the child.
That view is subscribed to by all the members of the General Assembly.
The Scottish Law Commission went into the matter in enormous detail; it is a subject worthy of that attention to detail. The Association of Reporters to Children's Panels,

which in Scotland would be regarded as being among the most authoritative voices in this field and an organisation that is closer to the issue of delinquent children than any other in Scotland, said in its submission that, at the very least, clarification of the scope of reasonable chastisement was required.
The Scottish Law Commission said:
We received a particularly cogent submission from Professor Michael Freeman, of the Faculty of Laws, University College, London.
The argument here is especially strong. Professor Freeman made the point:
The present law was, in any event, so imprecise and uncertain in its application as to be unjust to parents (as well as children). Moreover"—
this is an extremely serious point—
much child abuse was corporal punishment gone wrong.
He quoted an American study which concluded that well over half of all instances of child abuse appeared to have developed out of disciplinary action taken by the parent. That must worry hon. Members as it worries so many people when they think about the horrifying stories of child abuse which are now becoming public.
The Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children makes exactly the same point in its submission to the Scottish Law Commission. It says:
From experience staff know that cases of child abuse often start as physical punishment and escalate.
Those two strong arguments should convince anybody considering the case on the margin. I hope that Conservative Members will listen carefully.
The Scottish Law Commission went on to discuss the options that should be considered by it and by the policy makers—ultimately, this Parliament. It produced two options that should be drawn to the attention of the House. It said:
At the most general level we have to choose between recommending some change or no change in the present law. We have been impressed by the level of support, particularly from organisations concerned with child care or child welfare, for some change. We have accepted that there is force in some of the arguments for change, particularly in relation to corporal punishment at the severe end of what may be permitted by the present law. We do not therefore recommend that the law should remain unaltered.
It is incumbent on the Minister to tell us why, in the face of that strong recommendation from a body as authoritative as the Scottish Law Commission, the Government, in their mighty wisdom, are choosing to put to the House the option of no change in the present law.
In the next paragraph of the report, the Scottish Law Commission says:
So far as the direction of change is concerned we have no doubt that, if there is to be any change, it should be in the direction of reducing the level of physical force which can lawfully be used in the punishment of children. No-one argued that the existing law unduly curtailed the powers of parents, even although what is permitted today probably falls short of what was regarded as normal and desirable in earlier times.
That is the vividly expressed argument of the Scottish Law Commission.
The force of the conclusions in the commission's report needs to be read and understood by anyone who intends to vote at the end of this short debate. The commission says:
It seemed to us, on the basis of the comments which we had received, that there would be likely to be general agreement that a parent should not, in the purported exercise of parental rights, he allowed to cane, belt, whip or flog a child, or hit the child with a


shoe, slipper, wet cloth, piece of rope, wooden spoon, fish slice or any of the other objects which we know some parents use as instruments of punishment.
That is another vivid phrase and a horrifying commentary on what happens in the tiny minority of homes in which people hide behind the current imprecision in the law while doing these things to small children.
The commission went on:
It also seemed to us that almost everyone would agree that a parent should not be allowed to strike a child in a way which actually injured the child (by breaking an arm, for example, or damaging an internal organ, or lacerating the skin) or involved a risk of injury to the child (as a heavy blow to the head, face or abdomen would do, even if by good fortune it did not cause injury in a particular instance). It also seemed to us that almost everyone would agree that a parent should not be able to strike a child in such a way as to cause, or risk causing, prolonged pain.
The commission believes that everyone would subscribe to that. Its conclusions are based on a sentiment which I doubt anyone in the House would dare to suggest was wrong or controversial. Yet the Government intend to resist the new clause. They intend to say, in effect, that they will not offer children the protection that the Scottish Law Commission believes essential. The Government would appear to be willing to continue to allow these excesses to take place in a minority of homes, and they are not willing to effect the clarification of the law that the commission and almost everyone else in Scotland believes important to protect vulnerable small children in the family home.
The commission went on—as if it needed to—to carry out an opinion poll of its own, conducted by System 3 Scotland, to establish what public opinion is in respect of assaults of the kind that I have described. We are discussing not ordinary physical punishment—a slap on the leg—but the sort of brutality for which people can be acquitted in the courts because of a legal imprecision. The opinion poll discovered that 94 per cent. considered that it should be against the law for a parent to hit a three-year-old child with a belt, stick or other object, even if the hitting was not likely to cause lasting injury. Many of us might hesitate before hitting a 15-year-old, given the possibilities that might be involved—I say that as one who has brought up three children, two of whom are older than that. But the fact is that 68 per cent. thought that it should not be lawful to hit a 15-year-old with a belt, stick or other object.
Public opinion, too, supports the view that the law should be clarified. The Scottish Law Commission, after powerful consideration of the detail and having listened to all the authoritative arguments, has conclusively told the Government that the law needs amending in exactly the terms that new clause 1 proposes. Only Her Majesty's Government claim to know better than all these people.
I shall not press the Government further until we hear what the Minister has to say, but I sincerely hope that he will recognise this powerful argument, that he has re-read the SLC report and that he recognises that a change in the law is necessary. If he does that, we will achieve all-party support for the new clause and for clarification of the law. If not, we shall have to divide the House, whereupon I shall invite hon. Members on both sides to support the new clause.

Mr. Galbraith: It is important, first, to point out what the new clause does not do so that we can avoid its being caricatured by the Minister and others. It does not tell people how to bring up their children—that is a matter for them. It revolves around good judgment and very good

luck, probably more the latter. I would not want to proffer advice to anyone on how to bring up children; in any case, the new clause does not do that.
Secondly, the new clause is not, as I heard claimed on a BBC television programme, about telling people not to smack their weans, although it is often caricatured thus. I fully appreciate the pressures; sometimes one can be driven across the floor with the intention, if one can get one's hands on them, of doing more than just smacking the children—but most of us manage to resist the temptation. Personally, I cannot understand why anyone would want to smack children, but if people want to inflict a mild smack on them, within reason, so be it. The new clause does not outlaw that. It clearly establishes the limits that society wants to impose as to the extent to which children can be punished.
As it stands, the law is unclear and allows some people to abuse their parental and other rights. Physical punishment is often justified on the ground that it provides a learning mechanism to obtain some sort of Pavlovian response. It is said that children can be taught the difference between right and wrong in this way. Not true: we can teach them what to do and what not to do, but we certainly cannot teach them the difference between right and wrong—that will come only from reasoned arguments once conceptual analysis becomes possible. The problem is that many people start to think that the only method of getting something done is to inflict physical violence. We must put a stop to that idea.
We can apply two tests to find out what is acceptable in this area. The first is whether we would allow it between adults. Would we allow adults to hit one another with sticks, sometimes in public? Would we allow them to bruise one another in public? The answer is that we would have them up on charges—apart from in the case of boxing, which is the anomaly that proves the case.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: rose

Mr. Galbraith: It would appear that the Minister wishes to defend boxing. He is a classic example of the reasons why it should be banned.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would introduce legislation to ban boxing?

Mr. Galbraith: Looking at the Minister sometimes I think that perhaps we should—but I am being ungenerous to him. He knows that I do not mean it: he is rather a nice chap. The House has expressed its view against such legislation, and that is the end of the matter for now.
We would not, as I was saying, allow adults to whip each other, beat each other with sticks or bruise one another. That would be considered assault. If it is wrong for us, it is wrong to do it to children.

Mr. Tim Devlin: How then would the hon. Gentleman distinguish between smacking children, which would still be permissible under the new clause, and one adult slapping another, in public or in private, which would be classified as an assault?

Mr. Galbraith: Presumably if someone started slapping me in public without my consent, he would be charged. For some reason we permit this with children, although I do not like it either. People should certainly not be allowed to thump children with sticks or belts in public and get away with it.
The second test is whether we would allow it to happen to animals. The answer is that we would not allow much of what we are talking about to happen to them. We would not allow people to beat them with sticks so that they became bruised, cut or generally damaged. We would not allow them to be whipped. If we do not allow such punishment to be inflicted on animals, why do we allow children to be treated in that way?
The clause is not partisan, nor is it party political. I am not lecturing people on how to bring up their children. We all find the task difficult enough. I am merely saying that society has a duty to draw limits, and they should be drawn on the basis of the provisions of the new clause.

Mr. Gallie: It may surprise the House to learn that I agree with some of the comments about widespread public support. If the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) spoke to his constituents and other people in Scotland, I suggest that he would find a great move throughout the country to bring back the belt in schools. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I challenge him to come with me to any town of his choosing to ask people if they would like the belt to be reintroduced in our schools. I guarantee that more people would side with me in that instance than with him.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: I have only just started.

Mr. Hughes: I would like to take up what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Mr. Gallie: All right, I will give way.

Mr. Hughes: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. There is a demand in some areas for the belt to be brought back into schools. The hon. Gentleman has a point there, but he does not have to follow that demand. If the public demanded that kids' right hands should be cut off when they were caught stealing sweeties from a shop, would the hon. Gentleman go along with that?

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Member for Hamilton suggested that we should take account of widespread public support. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has realistically and practically acknowledged that there is a demand for the belt to be brought back into our schools, and I thank him for that. To take up the intervention of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, I would not vote to introduce legislation that would result in people's hands being cut off on being found guilty of theft. I regard that argument as incidental.

Mr. George Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman spoke for quite a while and others wish to speak. I have no doubt that he will have the chance to speak again in this debate.

Mr. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: All right, I will give way.

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman but there is a protocol in this place whereby we give way to an hon. Member if we refer specifically to him and he rises to intervene.
Whether the hon. Gentleman is right about people wanting to bring back the belt in schools is beside the point. We are talking about clarifying the law to give protection to children—in some instances, small children—from hard implements being used upon them of the nature that I described. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say, "Let us go to an average street in Scotland and conduct a straw poll." The Scottish Law Commission predicted that people like the hon. Gentleman would advance that argument. That is why it conducted an opinion poll. We know the finding of the poll, which is better than the hon. Gentleman begging me to join him in conducting a poll in a street somewhere in Scotland. We know that about 90 per cent. of those who participated in the opinion poll were opposed to punishment of the sort that I described being inflicted on three-year-olds. About 68 per cent. were opposed to it being inflicted on 15-year-olds. Surely even the hon. Gentleman can recognise that that public opinion is clear and firm.

Mr. Gallie: I am always reluctant to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who tends to make speeches out of interventions. That was hardly a short intervention, bearing in mind the fact that others want to speak. My challenge remains: if the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about public support, I leave my challenge on the table, as it were—I will go anywhere in Scotland that he suggests to ascertain public opinion.
In Committee, we debated a similar new clause. New clause 18 was voted down in Committee. No one voted in support of it. That was the right decision at the time. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take account of that decision when he responds to the debate. It is clear—[Interruption.] I hear Opposition Members saying "Silly man." The fact remains that in Committee new clause 18 was rejected. No one voted in favour of it.

Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is contriving to mislead the House. Although he called a vote on new clause 18 in Committee, it was not voted upon. There was no calling of a vote through the Chair. I did not take any part in debating that new clause because I did not want a lengthy debate to take place if that would prevent today's debate from taking place. The new clause related specifically to children in local authority day nursery care. We were not talking about parents' responsibilities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an argument between hon. Members; there is nothing for the Chair to rule upon.

Mr. Gallie: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe)—this appears in Hansard—begged to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Hon. Members said "No" and thereafter the Question was put and negatived. If the hon. Lady reads my words in Hansard tomorrow, she will find that I said that not one Member voted in support of clause 18. I was right to make that statement and there was no point of order for the hon. Lady to make.
The hon. Member for Hamilton suggests that the new clause will clarify the law. I shall go through the clause in detail and refer to parts of it which would raise questions in the mind of any sane man. I believe that the clause has been motivated by political correctness. It is yet another small step towards the ultimate goal of removing from parents any right to chastise their children.

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman can make his own contribution in due course.
We have heard about Finland and Sweden, but there has been no mention of Singapore, where the use of corporal punishment has wiped out crime. I accept that the clause is directed towards children, but there are wider implications. For example, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) talked about physical punishment being inflicted on adults. If a straw poll were conducted in Scotland on that issue, we might find majority support for such punishment. If the clause were agreed to and implemented, it would bear upon adults because it would lead to a ban on all forms of corporal punishment.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: No, I will not. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will contribute to the debate by making his own speech—[interruption.] I hear someone say, "Oh no," but I assure the House that it will happen.
Subsection (1)(i) provides that no parent shall strike his or her child "with a stick". Would a rap across the knuckles with a pencil be considered as use of a stick? We have already spoken about the belt, and subsection (1)(i) refers to "or other object". That takes into account everything, including my Order Paper. Would hitting a child with an Order Paper across the legs constitute an offence under the terms of the new clause? I suggest that that would be the position. Far from clarifying the law, the new clause would confuse it.

Mr. George Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: No. The hon. Gentleman has already made a mini-speech within my speech.

Mr. Robertson: I want to ask a question.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman can take up the issue later.
Subsection (1)(ii) provides that "to risk causing, injury" constitutes a crime. If a parent were gently to strike a child, the child might take avoiding action which could result in injury. Such action by the parent could infringe the law. Perhaps an Opposition Member will choose to take that matter up.
There is further comment in the new clause on the risk of causing pain or discomfort
lasting more than a very short time.
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman on that. Does it mean five seconds, 10 seconds, a minute, an hour, a day? Will the hon. Gentleman declare at this point what he means by "a very short time"?

Mr. Robertson: We are trying to give clearer parameters to the courts than they currently have. The court may decide what is reasonable in the circumstances. At the moment, there is no guidance at all. As the hon. Gentleman keeps asking me questions and not letting me answer any of them, I shall ask him a question, as he has the chance to answer. Has he read the Scottish Law Commission's report on the

subject? Why does he not take its arguments apart, instead of the rather feeble debating trick of taking apart the new clause that it has proposed?

Mr. Gallie: I have seen and read part of the commission's report, but I agree that I have not gone through it line by line. I frequently read such reports and I frequently feel that the conclusions arrived at are unsound and are conclusions with which I disagree. The reason why I stand here today is to vent that disagreement. I make particular reference to the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments in support of the new clause because I am trying to negate the points that he made.

Mr. Connarty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as it will avoid me making a long speech later. Does the hon. Gentleman strike his adopted children with a belt or a stick? If not, why is he unwilling to support a law which would prevent other people from doing that legally?

Mr. Gallie: Looking back, I have to say that I certainly would not strike my children now as one is 25 and the other is 22; they are adults in their own right. In the past, as a parent, yes, I struck my children, although I never ever struck them in a way that would have marked them: had I done so, I believe that the law as it stands would certainly have allowed me to be taken to court and due justice to be exacted. I certainly did strike my children when they were younger, and I make no apologies for that. I do not believe that I at any time created undue pain or misery to my children by so doing. It was infrequent and I would like to think that any such punishment is more a deterrent than a controlling factor.
On that basis alone, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reject the comments coming from Opposition Members. Let us not make another mistake on such issues by listening to the siren vices of the Opposition; let us maintain the status quo.

Mrs. Ewing: I intend to speak briefly. I have listened with considerable interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). Needless to say, I do not want to pursue many of the points that he raised, as the arguments that he deployed were similar to those advanced on issues such as the abolition of slavery, about slavery being good for the slaves, who would not be able to cope with freedom; or how it was good to keep pushing young boys up chimneys because it gave them employment.
As society develops, we have to look carefully at the parameters laid down by its legislature. I believe that the ideals enshrined in this very important new clause are admirable.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Lady does me a great disservice when she compares the comments that I made with the days of slavery and pushing young children up chimneys. We are in a different situation. I have raised questions of detail on the new clause. If the hon. Lady wants to contribute, perhaps she could ease my mind on some of the questions that I have posed in relation to the confusion that would ensue if the new clause were adopted.

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman must accept the clear point that I made: the legislature has a responsibility to bring forward ideals into its society which reflect views


and developments. The arguments that I used from history were put forward at that stage. Now, everyone regards them as ridiculous. In another century, people may look back on our debates—students of history, perhaps at some of the wonderful universities in Scotland—and wonder why on earth anyone opposed the principles being propounded here.
Of course there will be difficulties in legal interpretation. Any law that is instituted is subject to legal interpretation; otherwise we would not have lawyers, a legal system, and courts, in all their many different aspects. I believe that it is important, therefore, that we give some guidance. The Scottish Law Commission is one of the most respected legal bodies, and far too many of its reports have gathered dust on shelves and in the libraries of Scotland. We have not seen many of its very sound and effective recommendations brought into effect. This is a small measure, but it is one for which the Law Commission has clearly indicated its support, after taking substantial evidence.
The provision is also supported by organisations which see the effect of such punishment on children. The Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has clearly endorsed the new clause. We all accept that we are not trying to abolish the right of a parent to punish a child, but we are expecting limits to be set. I do not speak as a parent. Unfortunately I am not a parent, although I would have liked to be, but I have very interesting nephews and have watched them growing up and developing. I also worked as a teacher and saw the results in my classroom of some of the so-called "punishments" meted out to the children with whom I had to work from Monday until Friday.
It is right that if a social worker, teacher, doctor, health visitor—anyone who has a right to be in contact with the child—is concerned about the kind of chastisement being dealt out by a parent, he or she should be able to say, "This is outwith the parameters of the law and I will not accept it." That is where I come from. Of course there must be ground rules for parents, just as there are ground rules for teachers.
On punishment—not necessarily the belt—I could tell amusing stories about the class that I had to deal with for the last two periods on a Friday. The boys were desperate to leave school, could not wait for their school leaving date, and would be in competition all week to see how much of the belt they could get. Because I was the last teacher on a Friday, I was expected to be the one who would decide the competition. It was great fun for them until they discovered that I was not going to do it. So they had to sort it out before they came to my class. They knew the ground rules that I laid down within my classroom. I believe that that is what we expect within families as well. Children should always understand the parameters of the discipline and the behaviour that is expected of them.
The new clause lays down the social parameters of a responsible and caring society. I hope that all hon. Members will endorse it, because there are valid reasons for doing so.

Mr. Wallace: I, too, support the new clause. The real interest in the debate, which was opened so comprehensively by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is in what in the world the Minister will say in

opposition to it. We had a foretaste from the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). Let us examine his arguments. First, he argued that because for some technical or procedural reason no one voted for a parallel amendment in Committee that is somehow a compelling argument. He knows full well that that does not stand up at all.
The hon. Gentleman then suggested that there was some uncertainty in the law. The present law, however, is far from certain and the courts have interpreted widely what is meant by reasonable chastisement. In the briefing sent to us by Children First, we find that in one case a judge ruled that it was "reasonable" for a mother to use a belt on her nine-year-old daughter, leaving bruising—he said that that punishment was rightly deserved—yet in a different case, just a few weeks later, said that it was "unreasonable" that a mother had slapped her two-year-old in the face. Clearly, the present law is uncertain.

Mr. Devlin: I read that as well, and I felt that a clear distinction was made. One child aged nine had been slapped on the body and the other, aged only two, had been slapped on the face, which was obviously unreasonable.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman has made my point even more compellingly by introducing another factor—the age of the child. That complicates matters further, but I find the use of implements to hit even nine-year-old children unacceptable.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wallace: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's argument in a moment, and then allow him to respond.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a tap over the knuckles with a pencil, or on the leg with an Order Paper. He knows that such action would not attract proceedings: he knows that the bringing of any criminal prosecution in Scotland will require the procurator fiscal, and he knows that no procurator fiscal would dream of bringing a case in such circumstances. If someone sought to use the civil courts, I suspect that—even if the case got anywhere—zero damages, or damages of 1 p, would be awarded. It is as if a motorist was doing 30.5 mph in a 30 mph area: a prosecution simply would not be brought.

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman's approach shows much common sense. As a well educated lawyer, however, will he tell us whether hitting a child in the eyes with an Order Paper or poking a child in the eyes with a pencil, as part of a disciplinary procedure, would be prosecutable?

Mr. Wallace: I think so. Indeed, I hope that it would be prosecutable even under the current law. Acceptance of the new clause, however, would put the matter beyond doubt.
Much of what we are discussing must happen within the four walls of a family home. It is clear that enforcement may be difficult. I do not think that we should take the new clause further, and include smacking: that would constitute an intrusion into the family home, and it would be almost impossible to secure any evidence. The fact that cases have been brought to court, however, proves that evidence of


unreasonable chastisement or chastisement with an implement can be obtained. School authorities, friends or parents may notice a mark on a child.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has defeated his own argument. He says that a smack is okay, but a smack was involved in the instance featuring children aged nine and two that he used to demonstrate the current confusion in the courts. I believe that at that time the court acted wisely and justly, and made a rational decision. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) mentioned a poke in the eye, and the hon. Gentleman himself said that the present law would recognise that. I think that he has made the case.

Mr. Wallace: I do not agree. I was trying to illustrate the huge discrepancies in the interpretation of the word "reasonable". The position would be clear, however, if a child had been slapped in the face so hard that the evidence remained: that would undoubtedly come into the category of having caused pain for more than a short time. The hon. Gentleman asked what constituted a short time. He may have been such a perfect child that no hand was ever raised against him—there is always a possibility, although the suggestion may stretch the House's credulity—but he probably remembers what it was like to be given a smack on the bottom, and how long the pain lasted. A sensible approach would tell him what sort of time scale we are discussing.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned public opinion and political correctness. He may be interested to learn that only 3 per cent. of those surveyed by the System 3 poll to which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred agreed that it should be lawful to hit a three-year-old child with a belt, stick or other object, and only 10 per cent. thought that it should be lawful to hit a 15-year-old with a belt, stick or other object. Given that the Conservatives' poll rating in Scotland is now about 11 per cent., some Conservatives—indeed, quite a number, even at that time—must have thought that the new clause makes good sense. Political correctness, if such it be, is clearly pervading the rump of Conservative support in Scotland.
Opinion poll evidence is important in regard to a change in the law to reflect a change in social conditions. When taking such a step, it is important to carry public opinion. There are two categories: public opinion that considers it unlawful to use a stick, implement or object that would cause harm to a child, and the large body of opinion that would not consider it right to extend that as far as a smack. I believe that the Scottish Law Commission has got the balance right, reflecting public opinion. It is difficult to imagine what opposing arguments the Government may deploy.
Unfortunately the Secretary of State has left the Chamber, but I am sure that the Minister will remember our Second Reading debate in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh on 5 December. The Secretary of State said:
The Bill is founded on principles derived from the United Nations convention on the rights of the child".—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 5 December 1994; c.4.]
Let me remind the Minister that article 19(1) of that convention, which this country has ratified, states that parties to the convention must
take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical and mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment,

maltreatment or exploitation including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
I very much doubt whether our current legal position addresses that international obligation, into which the Government have voluntarily entered. I believe that the new clause would meet it, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I support this modest measure, which I believe is supported by public opinion. It is regrettable that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has not read the Scottish Law Commission report; if he had, he would have had second thoughts about many of the points that he made in his alarming and extreme speech. It concerns me that only four of his hon. Friends are present—five; another has just entered—[HON. MEMBERS: "Six."] It also concerns me that Conservative Members may be whipped through the Lobby to support—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had a good debate this afternoon, and so far we have kept to the amendments. Let us keep to them now.

Mr. Chisholm: I was only going to say that Conservative Members may be whipped to support the status quo and oppose the new clause.
We have heard the definition of unreasonable chastisement in Scots law, which is very unsatisfactory. The judgment of whether a child is beaten unreasonably is highly subjective; as a result of that subjectivity, adults have been able to get away with inflicting severe beatings on Scottish children for years—indeed, centuries. The new clause attempts to change that subjective definition into one that is at least partly objective.
It might be simpler to outlaw any kind of hitting, and I am personally attracted to that option, but I realise that it would go too far for public opinion. Many people still wish to administer a modest smack. The new clause tries to draw the line between such chastisement and the serious physical abuse that, as we all know, still goes on day in, day out in Scotland. I ask the hon. Member for Ayr and his colleagues to think seriously before opposing the measure in a knee-jerk reaction.
Let me advance three arguments in support of the new clause. First, I instinctively feel—according to the Scottish Law Commission, the majority of Scottish people feel the same—that it is barbaric for adults to inflict pain on young people, particularly with sticks, belts and similar objects. That is just an emotional reaction but one of which I am proud. I was disturbed to hear the hon. Member for Ayr suggest that he approved even of the sort of barbarity that goes on in Singapore. Most people in this country have a natural revulsion against that and, indeed, physical violence of a less severe nature.
If the Conservative party is not persuaded by and does not sympathise with that feeling, it should at least consider—I said this many times in Committee—that the Government have signed up to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. If that were taken seriously, the Government would have to support the new clause because that convention says that Governments must take legislative measures to prevent physical violence against children. As throughout the Bill, this is a simple matter of the rights of children. In the past, the


problem has often been that children have not been seen as full human beings. That is often why adults have felt able to beat children.
6 pm
My second argument against striking a child, apart from the simple barbarity of it, is that it is unnecessary. That should be clear if we look around society. Most children are brought up without such treatment and the majority of children are reasonably well behaved. We all know from our own experience that we do not have to treat children in such a way to get them to behave properly and to teach them the difference between right and wrong.
We should consider what has happened in relation to schools. The hon. Member for Ayr will disagree, but he if had read the Scottish Law Commission report he would have realised that it had considered all the evidence on the abolition of corporal punishment in schools and found that that in itself did not make a significant difference. Those of us who have been teachers can add our personal experience to back that view. We know that it is not necessary to treat children in that way.
The third argument that should be taken on board—again, reference was made to this in quite a lot of the evidence to the Scottish Law Commission—involves the long-term effect of such treatment on the children who receive it. This is perhaps the most important of all the arguments against such treatment. A wealth of evidence suggests that it makes children more aggressive and contributes to violent and anti-social behaviour. The Conservative party should consider that wealth of evidence.
This is a serious point. If one talks to violent criminals in prisons, it is amazing how many of them have been physically abused. Violent figures in history have often suffered such abuse. It brings to mind the fact that this week Alice Miller's book, "The Drama of Being a Child" is republished. She has concentrated on the effect of severe physical beatings on dictators and other vicious characters in history. In this week of all weeks, it would not be inappropriate to reflect that that was one aspect of Adolf Hitler's background. It is important, therefore, that the Conservative party considers the effect of severe beatings on the character and behaviour of young people who must endure them.
Subsection (2) may have something to do with the objections of the Conservative party. Of course the logical conclusion of not allowing parents to strike children in this way is not allowing other adults such as teachers to do so. We all know that certain private educational establishments still allow corporal punishment. It may be that a lobby made up of parents of children at such schools is influencing the Conservative party, but I urge it not to be so influenced or it will be seriously out of step with Scottish public opinion. I know that it is out of step with it on many issues, but it would be particularly regrettable if the Conservative party were to bury its head in the sand on this issue, ignore all the evidence and take what can only be described as a reactionary and deeply damaging position.

Mr. Devlin: I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). We are all concerned that people should not be unduly flogged

or viciously assaulted. The question is not whether we agree that that is a satisfactory way to treat children—we all agree that it is not—but whether the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and his hon. Friends is the best way to deal with the matter.
I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) when he read article 19 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Having been on the Special Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill and having been approached by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and others to sign the new clause, with which I have considerable sympathy, I have studied the matter carefully and spent some time on researching the issues around it. I have one or two reservations about supporting them and I shall tell them what they are.
Article 19 could be interpreted as calling on the Government to outlaw smacking. Subsection (1) of the new clause states that it would not be a defence if a child were struck
(ii) in such a way as to cause, or to risk causing, injury; or
(iii) in such a way as to cause, or to risk causing, pain or discomfort lasting more than a very short time.
It all depends on how one interprets the words
to cause, or to risk causing".
That is the difficulty. I can see why the Government are diffident about writing the new clause into the Bill.

Mr. Wallace: As the hon. Gentleman has shown diligence in relation to the Bill, he will undoubtedly have read the Scottish Law Commission's report, which considered that very point: whether the United Nations convention—

Mr. Devlin: I am coming to that.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman will note, however, that the report concluded that the convention did not outlaw an ordinary smack any more than it outlawed an ordinary scolding.

Mr. Devlin: The hon. Member for Hamilton, who opened the debate so well, rightly said that the proposal had been lifted directly from the Scottish Law Commission report. Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I have read the report. It states:
The vagueness of the existing law exposes children to risk of quite severe violence which parents may believe, rightly or wrongly, to be legally permissible".
That is the whole point. The difficulty is whether their learned Lordships—and I am an English, not a Scottish lawyer—are correct in their interpretation of the law as it stands.
Under the new clause, the use of such objects as belts or sticks to chastise a child would be outlawed, as would a violent blow. Subsection (4) of the new clause states that section 12(1) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 should be repealed. That is the existing Scottish law. My understanding of that law is that a violent blow would he construed as an assault on the


child, and that it would not be a reasonable defence if parents said that they were only administering reasonable parental chastisement.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Devlin: I should like to cover a few more points.
One or two important points have been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) said that we would not allow adults to hit each other with sticks and belts, and that we would not allow them to hit animals with whips, belts or other instruments of that nature, but an interesting distinction exists. We would not allow adults to slap each other—a point that I put to him in an intervention. In Scottish law, a slap, and even the placing of a hand on an arm, is construed as an assault. We allow parents, however, reasonably to chastise their children, and the new clause would still allow parents to administer some reasonable chastisement in the way of a slap.
Of course, the position is different in relation to animals because some animals must be controlled with the use of sticks, straps or whips. That is an everyday part of the animal's management. Anyone who rides a horse knows that it is permissible to strike it with a crop. We see that on our television screens most Saturday afternoons. No one prosecutes jockeys for administering some reasonable encouragement to the horse to run faster, so I do not want to get involved in that point.
The new clause would repeal the existing law—the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937—which makes assaulting, ill-treating, neglecting or abandoning children a criminal offence. It would also repeal section 12(7), which allows any parent, teacher or person with lawful control to administer punishment. That, together with the extensive associated case law, leaves individual sheriffs and judges to decide what constitutes reasonable chastisement of children.
The law in this area can be confusing. However, in any area the law has to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. That is why I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that there was a great of difference depending on the age of the child. He pointed to a case highlighted by the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children of a judge ruling on appeal that it was reasonable for a mother to use a belt on her nine-year-old daughter, but not reasonable for a mother to slap a two-year-old in the face. Obviously, there would be different degrees of physical chastisement for different children. No one would condone—and no one does under current Scottish law—the use of sticks or straps on very small children.
The proposers of the new clause say that it would significantly tighten the law in this area, provide clear parameters within which sheriffs can exercise discretion and provide a clear statement to parents about what is acceptable physical chastisement for children.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. Does he accept that one difficulty is that parents do not necessarily know what the law is? Would he hazard a guess at what age, under current Scottish law, it might be legitimate for a parent to take a belt to a child and at what age it might be illegitimate?

Mr. Devlin: As I understand it, there is no age divide—[Interruption.] I am happy to stand corrected if I am

wrong. I understand that a parent can chastise a child of about 13 with a belt. That has been held to be acceptable in many cases. However, doing so with a child of 10 has been held to be unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman obviously knows Scottish law better than I do.
There is a problem with the arguments put forward by those who support the new clause. If they want to outlaw all physical chastisement, they have a good case. However, the new clause covers only belts, straps and other instruments. That leaves rather confused arguments. I have great sympathy with the view of the Scottish Law Commission that a safe disciplinary slap involving no risk of injury and no more than transient pain would be no more unlawful under the proposals than it is under existing law. Therefore, why is it necessary to change existing law?
I agree that there should be some guidance. Currently, the discretion to decide what constitutes reasonable physical chastisement lies with individual sheriffs. The question is whether the new clause is the best way to secure the clarity of guidance sought by my colleagues on the Opposition Benches.

Mrs. Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman feels that we are least travelling in a direction of which he approves—even if we are not going all the way that he would want us to go—will he vote with us so that we can at least achieve some improvement in the law, or will he stick with his hon. Friends who are opposed to any change in the law? Has he read the Scottish Law Commission's statement that the current law is vague and that individual children are suffering because of that?

Mr. Devlin: In fact, earlier in my speech I read that part of the Scottish Law Commission's report into the record. The hon. Lady must have missed it. The current law appears to work quite well, taking into account the fact that it has to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. I can tell her that I always endeavour to support my hon. Friend the Minister if I possibly can. I look forward with great interest to what he has to say.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As I have listened to the debate, I have been struck by the enormous change in climate that has occurred over the past 10 to 20 years. Had we been having this debate all those years ago, dozens of Conservative Members would have stood up not just to oppose the new clause, but vigorously to state the case for the efficiency of corporal punishment. Today, not a single Conservative Member has said that corporal punishment is the best way to enforce discipline. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) came closest to doing so when he referred to what happens in Singapore and said that crime there had been wiped out by the use of corporal punishment. I do not want to argue with him, but as Singapore is still using corporal punishment, it cannot be working.
6.15 pm
The hon. Gentleman also said that a section of public opinion believes that behaviour would be much better if the belt was still available in schools and if the birch—or the cane, in England—was still available as corporal punishment for misdemeanours. Those who hold that view express it vociferously, but the Scottish Law Commission takes a different view. An interesting point is that there was a tremendously higher level of violence in Glasgow in the days of the razor gangs, when corporal


punishment was routinely administered day by day in primary and secondary schools and by parents. Treating violence with violence does not work.
There appears to be a nostalgic view about the use of violence in the past. It struck me as perverse that the press should have presented the funeral of one of the Kray twins as a coming together and healing of the community. There was a suggestion that when the Krays were not in prison, but were carrying out their foul deeds on the streets of east London, it was some sort of paradise. Where does such a nostalgic view come from? I certainly do not know. The truth is that the use of violence, whether by an adult against an adult or by an adult against a child, is wrong. It cannot be justified by giving it some sort of legal respectability.
The climate has changed and it is our duty not only to take account of that, but to try to persuade people that there is a better way of enforcing discipline and a much better way of teaching children the difference between right and wrong than to try to beat sense into them.
I am not a lawyer, but when a question of law has been examined by the Scottish Law Commission I feel that, unless there are very powerful arguments to the contrary, we should support the commission's. What it wants done is quite clear; it has set it out for us. I believe that, in this case, we are duty bound to accept it. I hope that the Government will do so.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: When considering this subject, it is useful to examine the current position under the law. A parent can exercise a degree of discipline and moderate chastisement upon his or her children. However, the punishment must be moderate and reasonable in relation to its end. If it is, that constitutes a defence to a charge of cruelty to the child, to a charge of criminal assault and to a claim for damages for civil assault. Discipline is not a right in the strict sense, but a parental power or authority. There is no reason why its exercise cannot be delegated—for example, by a widow or other single mother with an unruly son—to the child's uncle or grandfather.
On the question of the United Nations convention on human rights, in no Scottish case has the exercise of disciplinary powers over children been held to contravene its prohibition, in article 3, of inhuman or degrading punishment. However, the developing jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights—although its decisions are not directly enforceable—may influence views of reasonableness.
I mentioned earlier that only reasonable and moderate chastisement is permitted. What is today acceptable punishment by parents may well be limited to slaps and the like which do not cause injury, extensive bruising or long and lasting pain. Excess definitely constitutes an assault. What constitutes excess will vary according to the circumstances of the case, including the age, sex and any known disabilities or weaknesses of the child. Factors such as the nature and context of the punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration and its physical and mental effects will all be taken into account.
To slap a child of any age on the face or to knock a child over is an act as remote from reasonable chastisement as anybody could possibly imagine. Punishment which is intended to cause significant physical injury or which is inflicted in disregard of a

readily foreseeable risk of such injury is clearly excessive. Punishment that goes beyond the reasonable objectives of discipline and is degrading or grossly humiliating is definitely excessive. Where punishment is inflicted without any justification at all or is out of proportion to the triviality of the offence, it may be wrongful and constitute an assault although the physical results may not have been otherwise excessive. An objectionable method of punishment may also constitute excess, irrespective of whether physical harm results.
The court will not sanction as moderate or reasonable punishment which carries with it an appreciable risk of injury, even if that injury does not materialise or is not shown. In any event, it appears that there are certain methods of punishment which are to be regarded as improper and that blows to the head generally come into that category.

Dr. Godman: If the law is so comprehensive in protecting children from what the Minister has described as moderate or reasonable chastisement, why has the Law Commission presented the argument for reform?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Law Commission provides an invaluable function, but we have a duty to examine its terms very closely. The test that I would apply is that any change in the law should not prevent the court from deciding that an excessive punishment of a child is unlawful.
I have some sympathy with the intention behind the new clause. It is my view that no violence to children should be justifiable under the guise of punishment. On the other hand, we certainly do not want to criminalise the great majority of parents who occasionally have to resort to a safe smack, if only to safeguard their unruly offspring. The law as its stands—both statutory and common law—already offers sufficient protection to children from assault by parents, teachers or others who have charge of children. We must resist new clause 1 as it may prevent the courts from arriving at the conclusion that they felt right in the circumstances.
The Law Commission, in its "Report on Family Law", discussed whether all corporal punishment should be made unlawful. It concluded—rightly in my view—that an outright ban would not have popular support, nor would it be enforceable. Instead, it recommended clarifying the law to make it unlawful to hit a child with a stick, belt or other object or in such a way as to risk causing injury, pain or discomfort lasting for more than a very short period of time. In essence, that is the principle of new clause 1. But I must make Labour Members aware that the formula that they have adopted would not necessarily achieve the objective sought.
New clause 1 would place unnecessary constraints on the power of the courts to take all the circumstances of each case into consideration. That has proved to be a key factor in recent case history. Some reports in the media of such cases may have been misleading. There was the unfortunate case of the girl whose thigh was bruised by a belt. In fact, in that case, the court did not say that it approved of belting children. It found that after taking account of all the circumstances, the act of the mother could not be categorised as criminal.
It has also been pointed out that a blow to the head of a two-year-old was found to be unreasonable. I find that entirely credible. A blow with a hand to the head may be much more dangerous for a young child than for an older


child being struck with an implement on a less sensitive part of the anatomy. A court has to take many things into account in determining if punishment is reasonable, such as age, sex and known disabilities or weaknesses, the manner and method of execution, duration and the physical and mental effects of what has occurred.
New clause I may limit courts to only two factors: the use of the implement and discomfort lasting more than a very short period of time. I fear that that may force a court to come to a decision that it did not feel was justified given all the circumstances of the case. It may lead to a court finding against a parent who administered a light tap with some inoffensive—

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In a moment. It may lead to a court finding against a parent who administered a light tap with some inoffensive implement, while someone giving a much more severe blow with the hand may escape censure.

Dr. Godman: When were guidelines last issued to sheriffs, especially new sheriffs or temporary sheriffs—these days there seem to be more temporary sheriffs than those with security of tenure—concerning the Minister's definition of what is reasonable chastisement?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Any excessive force against a child in any circumstances should be prohibited and could give rise to a charge of assault. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) raised—

Mrs. Ewing: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I want to follow through this point. My hon. Friend made a very important point when he raised the question of reasonable punishment being a defence to a charge of assault. That is an assumption on which the new clause is based. It seems to restrict that defence so that it is not available in certain circumstances, such as where a parent strikes the child with a stick. But reasonable punishment is strictly not a defence to a charge of assault. A mother who hits a child may be prosecuted for assault under common law. An essential ingredient of that crime is the existence of evil intent. The courts have held that there is no evil intent when all that the parent did was to administer reasonable punishment to the child. It is not therefore the case that the assault is established and reasonable punishment constitutes a defence. Where there is reasonable punishment, there is no assault at all. The new clause therefore appears to miss its mark entirely.
There are other technical difficulties with the new clause.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Let me develop the argument and then lion. Members may intervene if they wish. Courts would have some difficulties interpreting subsection (1)(iii) of the new clause. Under it, a parent would have no defence if the child were struck
in such a way as to cause, or to risk causing, pain or discomfort lasting more than a very short time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr asked what was a very short period of time. It would be very hard to judge that other than by subjective standards. For example, would the length depend on the seriousness of the

misdemeanour? More importantly, since the test would arise where there is no injury, it is extremely hard to see how anyone could ever tell whether the pain lasted more than a very short time or, indeed, risked doing so.
Other important points concern me. What is meant by "other object"? Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr considered whether it would be legitimate to hit a child with an Order Paper. Would it be legitimate to hit a child in the eye or to use a heavy magazine? Whenever excessive force is used, it should be prohibited and the necessary action taken.
The effect of paragraph (ii) of the new clause is not clear and I fear would do nothing to clarify the law. There are a number of deficiencies in the new clause.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister's response so far has been somewhat unconvincing. He seems to be saying that the new clause does not provide what he would consider to be a satisfactory solution to the problem. Given that a United Nations committee chastised the British Government earlier in the year specifically on the ground that there was no legislation in force to avoid physical punishment to children, what proposals would he see as being appropriate to deal with this area, which would meet and honour our obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Appropriate proposals would create a situation in which the courts may consider any and every case in which excessive force against a child is used. I do not believe that the new clause helps the creation of that situation for the following reasons. It is impossible to enforce. It misses the legal point and therefore would not be effective, which I mentioned earlier. It limits the court's power to take all the facts of the case into account. It lacks objectivity as to what is a very short period of time and it categorises a gentle blow with a soft object as worse than a hard blow with a hand. For all those reasons, the new clause in its present form is defective and I recommend that the House rejects it.

Mr. George Robertson: This has been a considered debate in which hon. Members on both sides of the House made serious points on one of the most serious issues that the House could possibly consider, but the Minister's reply did not live up to the debate.
6.30 pm
We are talking about violence against small children. That is what we are trying to prevent. We are trying to clarify the law so that no body, and no parent, can hide behind the vagueness of the present law in order to inflict pain and injury on small children. That seems to be one of the most important issues that we could address our minds to. Quite frankly, the complacency and unconvincing nature of the Government's case would lead anyone with any objectivity outside this place to believe that they had made up their minds in advance and were simply repeating their points.

Mr. Devlin: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, while we are all seeking to protect small children from violence, the new clause will also prevent reasonable chastisement of young hooligans who are considerably older than very small children?

Mr. Robertson: Of course we are trying to implement the same principles. However, when hon. Members go


through the Lobby tonight, they should consider the fact that we are about to make a judgment based on a recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission on how we can prevent physical violence against even the smallest children. That should be weighed in the balance and should persuade hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the recommendation.
I return to what I said at the beginning of my comments and make a simple elementary point. This new clause did not come from the Labour party. It has not been tabled in a partisan context. Word for word, it is the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission. If the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) wants to make a few cheap political points about political correctness, perhaps he should consider that the accusation of political correctness—

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should listen to the charge before he pleads guilty to it. To make an allegation of political correctness against Lord Davidson, Dr. Clive, Professor Love, Sheriff Macphail and Mr. W. A. Nimmo Smith QC is perverse in the extreme. However, it is an indication of the weakness of the case of the hon. Member for Ayr. At least the hon. Member for Ayr has the honesty to say that he has not even read the Scottish Law Commission report before he makes a decision here tonight which might save some small children from violence and which might change a law behind which negligent and evil parents might hide when it comes to a court of law.

Mr. Gallie: My objection to the new clause is that it does nothing for young children. The present law covers the situation, as has been acknowledged in the debate. That is the point. The new clause would simply confuse the issue.

Mr. Robertson: In all fairness, if I thought that that was the case, I would not support the new clause tonight. I do not believe that if the hon. Gentleman had read the Scottish Law Commission report, he would have reached that conclusion. The commission considered the issue in enormous depth and it consulted widely, here and abroad, and reached its conclusion. It stated that its proposal, which is the proposition before the House tonight, would
draw the line at a point which could be easily explained and understood. No implement. No injury or risk of injury. No lasting pain or discomfort or risk of lasting pain or discomfort.
That is the line which those eminent lawyers and people looking at the issue arrived at. However, they have met a wall of trivia from the Government.
We are told that if someone is hit by an Order Paper or receives a light tap from an implement, there might be a risk of prosecution—as if there was no procurator fiscal service in Scotland and no public prosecutor could decide between the trivial and the real. In the past, the procurator fiscal service has had to make the judgment about what was real and proper. All that is swept aside in order to make debating points.
The Scottish Law Commission report considered the point that was made in the debate. It stated that
A safe disciplinary smack, involving no risk of injury and no more than transient pain would be no more unlawful than it is under existing law.

The commission addressed itself to the excess referred to by the Minister. It considered the excess of some parents against small children. We have a heavy responsibility on us today as to whether we believe that the Scottish Law Commission was wrong and irrelevant and that we will simply rely on the present vagueness of the law, which has unfortunately led to some parents receiving precisely the wrong signal, or whether we accept our responsibilities, consider the commission's advice and accept that new clause 1, which enshrines the commission's wording, is something that would give the additional protection to small children.
In the face of the Government's hostility, I hope that hon. Members will decide that we should be on the side of the children and that they will vote in favour of new clause 1.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 260.

Division No. 138]
[6.39 pm


AYES


 Adams, Mrs Irene
Denham, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dewar, Donald


Allen, Graham
Dixon, Don


Alton, David
Donohoe, Brian H


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Armstrong, Hilary
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ashton, Joe
Eagle, Ms Angela


Austin-Walker, John
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham.NW)
Enright, Derek


Barnes, Harry
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barron, Kevin
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Battle, John
Fatchett, Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Fisher, Mark


Bell, Stuart
Flynn, Paul


Bennett, Andrew F
Foulkes, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Fraser, John


Berry, Roger
Fyfe, Maria


Betts, Clive
Galbraith, Sam


Boateng, Paul
Galloway, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gapes, Mike


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Garrett, John


Burden, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Byers, Stephen
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Callaghan, Jim
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell-Savours, D N
Graham, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Church, Judith
Grocott, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hall, Mike


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hardy, Peter


Clelland, David
Henderson, Doug


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ann
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cohen, Harry
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Connarty, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cock, Robin (Livingston)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Darling, Alistair
Illsley, Eric


Davidson, Ian
Ingram, Adam


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jamieson, David






Johnston, Sir Russell
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Pope, Greg


Jowell, Tessa
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Keen, Alan
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&amp;S)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Khabra, Piara S
Purchase, Ken


Kirkwood, Archy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Raynsford, Nick


Lewis, Terry
Redmond, Martin


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Reid, Dr John


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rendel, David


 McAllion, John
 Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McAvoy, Thomas
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McCartney, Ian
Rooney, Terry


 Macdonald, Calum
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McFall, John
Ruddock, Joan


McKelvey, William
Sedgemore, Brian


 McLeish, Henry 
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McMaster, Gordon
Short, Clare


McNamara, Kevin
Simpson, Alan


 MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


 Madden, Max
 Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mahon, Alice
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury) 


Mandelson, Peter
Soley, Clive


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spellar, John


Meacher, Michael
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)



Steinberg, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Stevenson, George


Michael, Alun
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Milburn, Alan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Miller, Andrew
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Tipping, Paddy


Morgan, Rhodri
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wallace, James


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Welsh, Andrew


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wicks, Malcolm


Mudie, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wray, Jimmy


O'Hara, Edward



Olner, Bill
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. John Cummings and


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Joe Benton.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Alexander, Richard
Bowis, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Amess, David
Brandreth, Gyles


Ancram, Michael
Brazier, Julian


Arbuthnot, James
Bright, Sir Graham


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Ashby, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)


Atkins, Robert
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Butcher, John


Baldry, Tony
Butler, Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Butterfill, John


Bates, Michael
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bellingham, Henry
Carttiss, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Clappison, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Body, Sir Richard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Booth, Hartley
Coe, Sebastian


Boswell, Tim
Congdon, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)






Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Couchman, James
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dicks, Terry
Knox, Sir David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dover, Den
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan, Alan
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Durant, Sir Anthony
Legg, Barry


Dykes, Hugh
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Elletson, Harold
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lidington, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Luff, Peter


Faber, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fabricant, Michael
MacKay, Andrew


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fishburn, Dudley
Madel, Sir David


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forth, Eric
Malone, Gerald


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mans, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marlow, Tony


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


French, Douglas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fry, Sir Peter
Mates, Michael


Gale, Roger
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gallie, Phil
Merchant, Piers


Gardiner, Sir George
Mills, Iain


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Garnier, Edward
Monro, Sir Hector


Gill, Christopher
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Gillan, Cheryl
Nelson, Anthony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gorst, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Nicholls, Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Norris, Steve


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Grylls, Sir Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hague, William
Ottaway, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Page, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Paice, James


Hannam, Sir John
Patrick, Sir Irvine


Hargreaves, Andrew
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Harris, David
Pawsey, James


Haselhurst, Alan
Pickles, Eric


Hawkins, Nick
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heald, Oliver
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hendry, Charles
Rathbone, Tim


Hicks, Robert
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Richards, Rod


Horam, John
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robathan, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hunter, Andrew
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jack, Michael
Sackville, Tom


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jenkin, Bernard
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, David (Dover)






Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Thurnham, Peter


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Shersby, Michael
Trend, Michael


Sims, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Soames, Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Speed, Sir Keith
Walden, George


Spencer, Sir Derek
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Ward, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spring, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Sproat, Iain
Watts, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Stephen, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stewart, Allan
Wilkinson, John


Streeter, Gary
Willetts, David


Sumberg, David
Wilshire, David


Sykes, John
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thomason, Roy



Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Dr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 2

AWARD OF PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND PARENTAL RIGHTS TO FATHER

—(1) Where a child's father does not have parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to him and the mother and father have not agreed to provide for the father to have such responsibilities or rights, the father may apply to the court for such rights, provided that, unless there are exceptional circumstances he does so—

(i) no earlier than three months from the date of the child's birth; and
(ii) no later than a maximum number of years to be prescribed by the Secretary of State from the date of the child's birth if during the intervening time he had no active part in providing for or caring for the child.

(2) Before awarding parental responsibilities and parental rights under subsection (1) above, the court shall satisfy itself that arrangements are made for these rights to be exercised in such a manner as to avoid the father having knowledge of the address of the mother if she does not wish him to have such information.
(3) Where a father awarded parental responsibilities or parental rights under subsection (1) above is subsequently convicted of any offence involving violence or of any offences mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (offences against children to which special provisions apply) or in sections 2A to 2C of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 (incest and intercourse with a child by step-parent or person in position of trust), or has had a protection order enforced against him, his parental responsibilities and parental rights will terminate, pending any further application by him to the court for the restoration of such responsibilities and rights.'.—[Mrs. Fyfe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Fyfe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I take this opportunity to mention my appreciation for the help and support freely given by my hon. Friends during the Committee which was of inestimable benefit while we were dealing with a difficult and complex issue.
To put the new clause into context, it is necessary to look at what the Bill has set out. All mothers—regardless of whether they have been married or not at any time—have parental responsibilities and rights. Few dispute that where there are rights, there must be responsibilities. Indeed, the Bill has put a new emphasis on parental responsibilities.
There is widespread agreement that rights are needed to be able to exercise responsibilities. But where there are responsibilities, there must also be safeguards. The law should come to the aid of those mothers and children who are subjected to violence, abuse and intimidation far more than it does at present.
The Bill is clear about the protection of fathers' interests. Any father married to the mother at the time of conception has automatically gained parental responsibilities and rights. An unmarried father may acquire such rights by agreement with the mother, failing which he can take his case to court. We pointed out in vain in Committee that a mother may agree under duress, and that there is no protection in the Bill to overcome that. A man and a woman can be extricated from an unwanted marriage which has been imposed under duress, but nothing can be done to overcome duress in a shared parenting agreement. We must remember that the parents involved could be very young, as the Government's own amendment No. 116 reinforces.
The Bill contains a process whereby an unmarried father can take his case to court if the mother refuses agreement. That is not in the least disputed by Opposition Members. It is right that where a father is unreasonably denied parental responsibilities and rights by the mother, the law should provide a remedy for that father. It is for the child's benefit that that should be so. I also sympathise with those anguished fathers who have written to me and who are at present denied access to the children they love. They are looking forward to restoring happy relations with their children under the provisions of the Bill, even if there is no hope of restoring good relations with the mother.
The Bill contains provisions for rights for fathers who have been unreasonably denied them. But what of those cases where the mother's disagreement is entirely fair and reasonable and where we would doubt her sanity and her sense of responsibility for her children if she agreed to share rights and responsibilities with the father? The Bill does not provide for that situation. It is no answer to say that the mother can state her case in court. It is not clear whether either party would receive legal aid in such a case, and as men generally earn a lot more than women—especially women who are bringing up children—the woman would be put at an immediate disadvantage.
The new clause seeks to provide some initial safeguards and says that unless there are exceptional circumstances, a father cannot apply to the courts any earlier than three months from the date of the baby's birth. This would safeguard the mother's interests in a similar fashion to that involved in adoption law, which allows a mother time to think and decide following the birth of her baby. It cannot seriously inconvenience the father to be made to wait for a mere three months, and many a father of a newborn baby might jocularly wish that he had no responsibility for the infant and that the mother had to carry out all of the less pleasant tasks associated with baby care.
The second provision of the clause is that, again unless there are exceptional circumstances, a father should not be able to apply to the courts if, during a number of


years—the amount of which I am happy to let the Secretary of State lay down—he has had no active part in providing or caring for the child. While safeguarding fathers who do care for their children, this provision would safeguard mothers and children from the kind of man they could well do without. What excuse could there possibly be for a father who sends no money or items in kind to help with his child's upkeep, sends no letters or cards and makes no effort to carry out his fatherly responsibilities?
In Committee, the Minister rather fancifully envisaged wandering sailors as such a case, but even sailors have access to modern communications and shore leave, which—as far as I know—has not yet been withdrawn. However, to allow for the rarer possibilities in life—a father who is sunk in a coma in a country where no one speaks English, perhaps—I have allowed for exceptional circumstances. It would be for the courts to decide if those circumstances were sufficiently exceptional.
Subsection (2) of the new clause should cause no one any difficulty. It ensures that the court must satisfy itself that when it grants parental rights and responsibilities to a father, those rights will be exercised in such a manner as to avoid the father having knowledge of the mother's whereabouts if she does not wish him to have that information.
Sadly, we learnt while the Committee was sitting of a mother who was killed by her ex-husband while their young son hid in fear. The husband had obtained her address from the reporter to the children's hearing on three separate occasions. The Minister has agreed to ensure that, in future, such information will not be disclosed during or following the children's hearing if the mother does not wish it to be disclosed. It is only logical to extend the protection of women's safety to the courts in cases such as I am discussing now.
Finally, subsection (3) of the new clause provides further and necessary protection against violence, intimidation and abuse. If a father abuses the parental responsibilities and rights which are granted to him by the court and is convicted of an offence involving violence or abuse against children or has had a protection order enforced against him, his parental rights and responsibilities will terminate pending any further application by him to the court for restoration of his responsibilities and rights.
It is as plain as the nose on anyone's face that a father who is guilty of such offences is hardly demonstrating fitness for parenthood, and the law should take account of that without delay. As matters stand, such a father could be convicted of the most appalling crimes against children or the most extreme violence against his former partner, but retain his parental rights and responsibilities until further court actions are taken—perhaps many months later. Mothers can obtain interdicts, but the kind of man about whom we are talking will as readily break his ex-partner's neck as break an interdict.
The Bill provides for parents who have responsibility for their children, regardless of marital status. But recognition of the rights of responsible and loving fathers who do not live with their children must not carry the price of added difficulties for parents who have demonstrated daily their commitment by living with the child and caring for his needs, day in and day out.
Domestic violence, unfortunately, is not rare in Scotland. Scottish Women's Aid received more than 25,000 requests for information, support and safe refuge in 1993–94. Yet the Bill makes no mention of domestic violence. If the welfare of the child is to be paramount—as I believe it should be and as the Bill rightly stresses—the law of the land must protect the rights of the child and the parent who cares for him or her from violence and abuse, and the fear of violence and abuse.
If the Government refuse to accept this new clause tonight and call upon their colleagues once again to come into the Lobby and vote it down, unheard and unexamined, it will stand to their eternal shame. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. William McKelvey: I rise to support new clause 2. I do so because I have studied carefully the documentation that was despatched to me from many sources, but particularly Women's Aid and Kilmarnock and Loudoun Women's Aid, an organisation with which I am often in contact, not for abusing my wife or children but because I take an interest and to assist those women who are under severe provocation from their partners.
The absence of a specific reference to domestic violence would substantially detract from the value of the Children (Scotland) Bill. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that, if the troops are gathered simply to vote the new clause down without examining it, it will be an indictment of them.
7 pm
Abuse of women and children in society, and certainly Scottish society, is prevalent. It is a matter of concern to all women and all children and it should be of concern to all Members of Parliament. At present, there are almost twice as many children as women in Women's Aid refuges in Scotland. The best interests of those children must be paramount in law. That has been said throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
The experience of Women's Aid in Scotland clearly shows that the breakdown in contact between many fathers and their children is due largely to disinterest on the part of the father or the level of fear created by his abuse of either the wife or the children or, in some cases, both. I am speaking on this occasion about those violent husbands who abuse their wives and children. I am not talking about those husbands who look after the interests of their wife and children but who, for whatever reason, have decided to separate honourably. Their rights are still protected. I think that all of us would agree with that.
The Women's Aid network in Scotland supports the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill. The new clause seeks to limit the period within which a father can exercise his right to apply to a court for parental rights. That is quite proper. It seeks to maintain the confidentiality of the address at which a woman resides, if she does not wish the father to have such information. Many Members of Parliament know about the difficulties caused at women's refuges when the husband secures the address at which his wife or former wife is staying and goes to the premises to create a commotion or abuse her.
Scottish Women's Aid supports the new clause, first because it would restrict fathers' rights to claim parental rights after an unduly long absence and, secondly, because


it would increase the safety of women and children where they have escaped domestic abuse and the father has access rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill said that the new clause might help to guard against future fatalities such as that of Jacqueline McFetvich, who was killed last year by her abusive husband after her address was released on not one but three occasions by the reporter to the children's panel.
It is vital that the connection between abuse and parental rights be enshrined in law to the effect that, where abuse occurs, evidence of which would result in a conviction or a protection order, parental rights will go into abeyance. The father will be required to reapply to the court to reinstate those rights under the conditions outlined.
I take this opportunity to explain that I did not have the opportunity or privilege to serve on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. Due to some recorded mistake, many people have written to me under the impression that I was a member of the Committee. I have to advise them that I did not serve on the Standing Committee, although I chaired the meetings of the Special Standing Committee which took evidence on the Bill. I understand that, by protocol, that does not exclude me from speaking in the debate tonight. I wanted to put that matter on the record lest some of my constituents might think that I served on a Committee in which I never uttered a word. That, of course, would be unforgivable as well as unforgettable.

Mr. Connarty: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) for the way in which he chaired the Special Standing Committee. It was my first experience of such a Committee. I believe that not many hon. Members who serve on Committees which consider Bills have the experience of taking evidence from the public. Many organisations wrote to us. Many could not be called, because there were too many. The sessions that we held were eased by the chairmanship of my hon. Friend. So his contribution was great, although he was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill and therefore did not take part in the debates on the clauses.
I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) for bringing the clause back to the House. We missed such an opportunity in the Committee. If we did not create even this small door to be opened to the possibility of joint parenting agreements by application to the courts, we would not have a chance to restore some of the missed opportunities.
In England and Wales, under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, only 5,000 agreements in any year are signed between the mother and the unmarried father of a child, under which the father is given responsibility for the child. That has grown from 2,500. As I said in Committee, one of the reasons for the low number of agreements is that people think that when they jointly register a child at birth, they automatically assume joint parental responsibility. The reality is that fathers have no rights and, more important, no responsibilities for the child apart from those which the Child Support Agency might eventually slap on them. Fathers think that they have rights because they have gone along with the mother to register the birth of the child. So we have a chance to introduce some joint responsibility in subsection (1) of new clause 2.
Some 30 per cent. of children in Scotland are born outside a married relationship, so there is probably a large number of children at this moment who have no father with a clear responsibility for them and whose father will have no clear responsibility or rights when the Bill becomes statute. I deeply regret that. For the good of our nation, I hope that some Government bolder than this one will take the opportunity to put it into law that when people have joint parenthood, they have joint responsibilities and rights and they are excluded from those rights only by some act of either omission or commission which makes them unfit to take those rights.
I welcome subsection (1) of the new clause. It allows a father who is serious and sincere, and who has been excluded from parental rights perhaps because there have been tensions or acrimony between the mother and the father, to go to court and apply for those rights. The idea that it should not be done early in the life of the child is to be commended because in those months the mother is under tremendous stress. She may be in hospital; she may be in contact with the hospital and doctors for three months and more. Three months seems a reasonable period of application. Some would argue that the period should be longer, until the mother has got over any problems with post-natal depression or any problems with the child. After that, she can cope with an application to share responsibility when the couple may have broken up their relationship.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) used the word "waster" to describe the type of father who is apathetic. That is the word used by the Women's Aid organisation about fathers who go away and return on some opportunistic basis, thinking that they would like to have the ready-made family that their partner or former wife has brought up. They claim rights as if they were claiming back a possession. Those people should clearly be forbidden from coming back and demanding rights in that way. That was the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill in drafting the new clause in the way that she has.
The idea that fathers should have no knowledge of the address of the mother is important. It is the children who have rights. I have argued all along and continue to argue, and many enlightened organisations correctly argue, that the child should have the right to see both parents. No adults, because of their acrimony to another—unless the other person has been violent or abusive to them or to the children—should deny children that right. I hope that in that spirit the Government will see that we are trying to provide an open door.
Subsection (2), which says that the father should have no knowledge of the mother's address, deals with the concern that there should be no need to contact the former parent. The parent should not be made to come into contact with a former parent whom she does not want to see. That happens in a few cases. We must think and the Government must think about how to do that better. As it is the child and the parent who have the contact, it should not be a trauma for the residential parent. The residential parent should not have to go to a place where it might be necessary to come in contact with the parent who wishes to see the child. It is a question not just of no knowledge


but of ensuring that there is no forced contact or contact by error because I think that it was an error that caused the death which we heard about in Committee.

Dr. Godman: I am listening closely to my hon. Friend. He spoke about access. Does he agree that we frequently come across cases in which an absent parent's access to a child is supervised by a social worker or some other person in a place that is away from where the child is living with his mother?

Mr. Connarty: That is a useful intervention because it shows the Government that there is already good practice in this area. The social work department or some other body, although in Scotland it is mainly the social work department, is responsible for uplifting the child and taking him to a mutually acceptable environment. It is important that children are not taken to cold, dank halls in which there is a physical barrier between them and the second parent who comes to see them. The environment should be such that the child and the second parent have genuine access and contact. Even if they are not supervised all the time, the responsibility for bringing the child to the place of contact should certainly lie with a third party unless the residential parent is capable and willing to meet and make contact with the father.
Subsection (3) of the new clause is about positive parenting. The purpose of the new clause is to show the Government that if parental responsibility were automatically shared it would safeguard the residential partner, in the main the woman, from any form of contact with an unsuitable person. All the issues that are outlined in subsection (3) are reasons why a parent should be kept away from the family that he has abused, threatened or committed violence against. Such people should be prevented from re-establishing contact with the child.
These 40 pages of amendments were stuck down on Friday for debate today. To act in that a way on a Bill of such magnitude and importance shows that the Government are half-hearted about what they are trying to do. They are tied up with bureaucratic difficulties and missing fantastic opportunities to use the UN convention on the rights of the child and enact useful and expansive legislation for children.
The new clause puts children first because my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill has obviously focused on the child. It is interesting to note that the organisation in Scotland which used to be called the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is now called Children First. It has got the message but it appears that the Government have not. However, if they at least accept this new clause there will be a slight lowering of the barriers that the Government's myopic, weak and half-hearted thinking have put in the way of the kind of legislation that we thought we would get when we set out on this journey so many months ago.

Mr. Wallace: I support the new clause, which should automatically commend itself to the Government. It promotes responsibility because, when a father applies to the court, it is to acquire not only rights in respect of the child but responsibilities. I am sure that every hon. Member has had plenty of correspondence over the past year or more from fathers who were being pursued by the Child Support Agency, many of whom were exercising responsibility through what they were paying for their children.
But responsibility is far more than money, although I am the first to accept that resources and money can go a long way towards improving a family's life style and helping in other ways. There are other responsibilities, many of which are set out in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) has struck the right balance in her new clause. It would not apply to cases in which there is agreement between the parties, and provision for such agreement is set out in clause 4 of the Bill. It would relate to a situation in which there has been some reason for blocking the father's attempts to exercise rights and responsibilities in relation to the child. Therefore, the provision to ensure that an application to the court is not made prematurely while a mother is recovering from childbirth—

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman has a vast knowledge of Scottish law, and may be able to help me. When a father makes such an application to a court, presumably the estranged wife or partner would have the right to challenge it. Would she be able to have recourse to legal aid?

Mr. Wallace: Although the clause does not refer to that, I automatically assumed that the mother would have a right of challenge and would be entitled to apply for legal aid.
Provision is made for the address of the mother to be kept from the father when serving the action. I am not sure how that would work in practice because the father would take the initiative, and it is difficult to know how he could serve the action if he did not have knowledge of the mother's address. However, I am sure that court rules could get round that. The intention is proper, and there should be the will to try to find the legal and procedural means to put the intention into practice.
My final point relates to subsection (3). We have had representations from Scottish Women's Aid, which says that, in many cases, an application by a father who may have been absent for some time can be made purely to try to renew abuse or perpetrate some psychological harm. Clearly that is not the intention of the new clause, and the provision in subsection (3) is important to give protection in circumstances where a father seeks to abuse legal procedures.

Dr. Godman: I doubt whether the new clause will be accepted. I asked the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) whether the estranged partner or wife of a man making an application could challenge it. If she could, and if she had a low income, I take it that she would be able to receive legal aid. Many women constituents of mine who have had to seek refuge from violent partners or husbands have been on low incomes and faced all kinds of problems.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). I happily support the new clause; women have to be protected. It is essential that the address of a refuge should not be divulged to a partner who has committed violence or where the woman has a genuine fear that violence may be inflicted upon her.
Cases in which the address of a refuge has been given to an estranged partner cause me considerable concern. Not long ago, I interviewed a young woman at my surgery


who had been subjected to the most appalling violence by her partner. I am not sure that he is psychopathic, but it is very strange that he should inflict such violence on a young woman. At the same time, he has shown only love and affection for his children, who have suffered no violence. The poor young wife has been the victim of his wild, senseless acts of violence.
Where women need to seek refuge, it is essential that they be protected. Many refuges have no security, and once the partner has discovered the address, he can put the fear of God not only into his wife or partner but into other women in the refuge, especially if he turns up at night. I know of one refuge, the address of which was given out readily to husbands who had rightly been deserted by their wives, who were in fear not only of their own lives but of those of their children.
Although a father should have parental responsibilities and rights, it is essential that the woman concerned has the right to seek protection against him, especially, as subsection (3) states, where he has been
convicted of any offence involving violence or any offences mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (offences against children to which special provisions apply)".
As I said in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), it is possible to give violent fathers supervised access to their children without revealing the children's address, unless the children unwittingly give the game away and reveal the address to their parents.
Two constituents of mine can see their children only at a place designated by the social worker responsible for the care of the children concerned. Both the mother and father can see their children only in the company of the senior social worker responsible for the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East expressed concern that such meetings should not lead to the revealing of the address where the children are staying. That is perfectly manageable, given the sensible and sympathetic intervention of, say, a social worker.
If the Government will not accept new clause 2, they have a duty to take those concerns on board, particularly in respect of women who have had to seek refuge. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. I occasionally visit the office of the women who run Inverclyde Women's Aid in West Blackall street in Greenock. The last time that I was in that office, they were receiving calls from Lanarkshire, Grampian and Aberdeen.
Just before I left, a call came in from Cornwall, where a woman with two children needed desperately to put as many miles as she could between herself and her children and her violent partner. So the Women's Aid offices in Inverclyde and Kilmarnock do not deal just with local women, but are often called on to protect women and their children from all points of the compass. It is therefore essential that reporters and others do not reveal the location of refuges. Those who have done so in the past are guilty of irresponsibility towards those women and their children.
I am keen to hear what the Minister will say in rejecting the new clause. My concern is for the children and their mothers who must seek refuge in the growing number of refuges in Scotland and elsewhere.

Mr. Chisholm: The rights and responsibilities of unmarried fathers have been one of the more contentious

aspects of the Bill, not least among organisations representing single parents. As most of those organisations have now arrived at a consensus on the new clause, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that by accepting it. I suppose that the reason for the disagreement is that the rights of fathers, mothers and children do not always coincide, and ultimately, a balance must be struck.
The Bill advances the rights of fathers through the provision of voluntary agreements with mothers on joint rights and responsibilities. I hope that the Government will widely advertise that provision, so that the large number of couples who are not married but have a stable relationship can readily enter into such an agreement.
Nevertheless, we cannot just accept that all fathers should automatically have those rights. A child born of rape is merely the most extreme instance of how unsatisfactory that would be. Sometimes, a father's rights can conflict with a child's rights—for example, in the case of a father who has treated his child unsatisfactorily.
A constituent recently told me that the court had ruled that her child's father was to be allowed see her child, but that the child, who was five years old, had not seen that stranger before, and suddenly had to start going out with a strange adult every week. Such cases are sometimes not taken into account. I do not say that that father should not have the right to see his child, but the rights and feelings of the child should have been taken into account in the court order. Subsection (1)(ii), which mentions the time interval, takes that consideration into account. That is relevant to the child as well as to the mother.
Consideration of the time interval is becoming more common. One of the side effects of the Child Support Act 1991 is that some fathers who have never taken an interest in their children are saying, "If I must provide financially, why shouldn't I see the child?" Sometimes it is not for the best of motives, but to get at the mother. The new clause takes the time interval on board.
More commonly, a father's rights may conflict with those of the mother. The new clause seeks to protect the mother's rights, and makes three specific proposals.
First, where there is disagreement, a father should not apply for parental rights too soon after the birth. Three months is a modest proposal. We could have proposed a longer period, but I hope that we can all agree on three months.
I hope that the reasons are obvious to the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) had to spell out the reasons in Committee, as she was one of the few women on the Committee. In the first three months after giving birth, a mother obviously has more important things on her mind.
The second proposal is that the mother should have the right to have her place of abode kept secret. The reasons for that are obvious.
The third and most serious proposal, which responds to a genuine worry of many women's and single-parent organisations, is to terminate the rights of a father who is violent. The provisions of subsection (3) go at least some way to meeting that objective. Some people want the provision strengthened to cover fathers suspected of violence. As it stands, no one can say that the provision is not fair to men, because a conviction is required.
People who were worried about some of the Bill's provisions have united around the new clause, and I hope that the Minister will accept it accordingly.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This has been a useful debate. First, I shall answer the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about legal aid. Any party to an action to obtain parental responsibilities and rights can apply for legal aid, and will obtain it if he or she satisfies the usual tests.
The most important point raised in the debate was concern over the safety of women, especially battered women, in refuges. Although I shall oppose new clause 2 on technical grounds, we shall consider an amendment to allow a mother to apply to the court to have her details kept confidential. However, it would be for the court to consider that in all the circumstances of the case.
In respect of whether the woman could oppose or contest any action, the normal rules of procedure will apply, and the application will be served on the mother or would be brought to her attention so that she could oppose it.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked how an application would be served and whether the normal rules of court would apply if the address of the mother were to be withheld from the applicant. It would be necessary to provide that the rules of court could make arrangements for bringing the application to the mother's notice. As I have said, we will consider the matter further.

Dr. Godman: I was pleased to hear of the Minister's proposed amendment in respect of a court deciding whether a woman's address should be divulged. In the time leading up to the court case, would the address of the woman involved be confidential?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We shall consider the issue and all its implications, and the hon. Gentleman's point is a key implication.
The difficulty with new clause 2 is that it would place time limits on when a father can exercise his right to apply to the court for parental responsibilities and rights. It would also place a duty on the court to prevent the father from finding out the address of the mother, and also to require the father to reapply for parental responsibilities following any conviction.
Although I have considerable sympathy for the objectives of hon. Members in putting forward such a new clause, I am not convinced that it is necessary. Under the terms of clause 11, any person claiming an interest in the child can apply to the court for parental responsibilities and rights. In considering whether to make such an order, the court will have regard to the welfare of the child as its paramount consideration.
New clause 2(1) would restrict the circumstances in which a father who is not and has not been married to the child's mother could apply. We believe that the only cases in which a genetic father or mother should be prevented from having access to the courts for this purpose are in the circumstances described by the House of Lords in their decision in re D on 9 March 1995, and in analogous circumstances where parental rights and responsibilities have been extinguished by a court. That is achieved by Government amendment No. 127.
In other cases, we believe that it would be difficult, having regard to international obligations, to have a provision that prevents a genetic parent from applying for such an order at any time. I therefore think it would be preferable to allow the genetic parent to apply, but to leave it to the court to determine whether to make an order in all the circumstances of the case.
I am not persuaded that subsection (2) is appropriately drafted. It is not clear whether it envisages that a court would inquire into whether the mother wishes that the father should not have knowledge of her address in every case. I think that that would go too far.
In any event, it would not be practicable for the court to be satisfied that the mother's address would not become known to the father. The court could not necessarily control all the circumstances in which such information might be made known to the father, including by innocent third parties such as the children themselves. I have said that we will look at the issue with a view to considering it further for the next stage of the Bill, although I do not think that subsection (2) is appropriately expressed in its present form.
Finally, it seems discriminatory that new clause 2(3) should deprive the unmarried father automatically of parental rights and responsibilities in the event of a conviction as described, but to make no such provision in relation to the married father—or, indeed, the mother. Arguably, any person with parental responsibilities should be treated equally in relation to the possible risk to the child should he or she incur such a conviction.
For those reasons, I would ask the House to reject new clause 2.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank my hon. Friends who made important and valuable points in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) mentioned the direct experience disclosed to hon. Members by Scottish Women's Aid. Only that organisation has daily experience of dealing with the sort of problems that we are discussing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) rightly pointed out that joint registration of births is not widely taken up. It is taken up by very few indeed. That is an important aspect that we should consider in terms of ensuring that both parents have responsibility for the child.
We must allow for fathers to overcome unreasonable objections by mothers, and the Bill at least provides a safeguard for fathers in that position. But it is surely right to try to protect the interests of mothers who are being unreasonably put upon by the fathers.
As some hon. Members have said—I have some sympathy for this argument—three months from the date of the child's birth is possibly a little on the short side. I would happily let it go longer than that. The Minister objected that any length of time is objectionable, because it would interfere with the father's rights. He said nothing about the mother's right not to be persecuted in that way. She might still be lying in a hospital maternity bed, suffering from the mental and physical after-effects of the birth—or possibly from post-natal depression. In any case, it is only reasonable that the law should take account of that, as it does in respect of adoption.
It has been pointed out that I was one of the few women on the Standing Committee. Indeed, I could point out that I was the only mother on the Committee, the only person with direct experience of what it is like in the days immediately after a child is born. It says something about our legislature that there are so few women, mothers or otherwise, able to take part in considering legislation in the discussion of which I should have thought such direct experience could play a useful part.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends who have come to support the debate. It is noticeable that, from the Government side, not a single Back Bencher took the opportunity to take part in the debate. Indeed, for most of it, the Government Benches have been as empty as they could be, with the bare minimum of hon. Members on them. That will be noticed by women up and down the country and by the sort of good, decent, honourable men who want the law to serve both women and men fairly and well.
I thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for his support. We can take up the point about the wife's address in this way. It is very possible that a former partner looking to exercise rights and responsibilities after the passing of many years could find out the wife's address, but she might quickly remove herself from that address to avoid contact with him.
The Minister said that it might be difficult to ensure that the husband or ex-partner never acquires the address. That is not a sensible objection, because, while the husband or ex-partner might find out by other means, the law should ensure that at least no one in court will give the information away. A simple request by the woman involved that she does not want the information to he given should be sufficient if she has reasonable grounds to fear for her safety and that of the child. Of course the information can be given away in another way, but that did not stop the Minister saying that he would provide similar safeguards in the case of children's hearings. By the same logic, he should support this proposal.
I am glad that the Minister will further consider the matter. I am disappointed that he is nevertheless going to reject new clause 2 on the grounds that he has stated, because subsection (1) restricts the father's rights only in the most reasonable and tiny way possible. If he feels that new clause 2(3) should go further, I would agree.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke of the reality in the refuges. I wish that there were more women in the Chamber now who had that direct experience; I do not have it. I was fortunate enough to be married to a man who never dreamed of treating either me or the children violently or abusively. That is, of course, the experience of the vast majority of women.
It would do the House and the country good if the experience of women in refuges could be described in the Chamber. Unfortunately, such experience is lacking. We who are here have to try to speak up for those who are not here to speak for themselves. We have tried to do that, and it is a shame and a disgrace that the Government are not more responsive tonight.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 258.

Division No. 139]
[7.39 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Golding, Mrs Llin


Allen, Graham
Graham, Thomas


Alton, David
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Armstrong, Hilary
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Ashton, Joe
Grocott, Bruce


Austin-Walker, John
Gunnell, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hall, Mike 


Barnes, Harry
Hanson, David


Barron, Kevin
Hardy, Peter


Battle, John
Heppell, John


Bayley, Hugh
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Bell, Stuart
Hoon, Geoffrey


Bennett, Andrew F
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Benton, Joe
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Berry, Roger
Hoyle, Doug


Betts, Clive
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Illsley, Eric


Callaghan, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jamieson, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Campbell-Savours, D N
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Church, Judith
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd South West)


Clapham, Michael
Jowell, Tessa


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Keen, Alan


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&amp;S)


Clelland, David
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Khabra, Piara S


Coffey, Ann
Kirkood, Archy


Cohen, Harry
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Connarty, Michael
Lewis, Terry


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Corbett, Robin
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cox, Tom
McAllion, John


Cummings, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McCartney, Ian


Dalyell, Tarn
Macdonald, Calum


Darling, Alistair
McFall, John


Davidson, Ian
McKelvey, William


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McLeish, Henry


Denham, John
Maclennan, Robert


Dewar, Donald
McMaster, Gordon


Dixon, Don
McNamara, Kevin


Donohoe, Brian H
MacShane, Denis


Dowd, Jim
Madden, Max


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mahon, Alice


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mandelson, Peter


Eagle, Ms Angela
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eastham, Ken
Meacher, Michael


Enright, Derek
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michael, Alun


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Milburn, Alan


Fisher, Mark
Miller, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Don (Bath)
Morgan, Rhodri


Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Fraser, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Galbraith, Sam
Mowlam, Marjorie


Galloway, George
Mudie, George


Gapes, Mike
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gerrard, Neil
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Hara, Edward


Godman, Dr Norman A
Olner, Bill


Godsiff, Roger
O'Neill, Martin






Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Simpson, Alan


Pearson, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Pike, Peter L
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Pope, Greg
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Soley, Clive


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Spellar, John


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Steinberg, Gerry


Purchase, Ken
Stevenson, George


Quin, Ms Joyce
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Redmond, Martin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Reid, Dr John
Tipping, Paddy


Rendel, David
Turner, Dennis


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wallace, James


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Welsh, Andrew


Rooney, Terry
Wicks, Malcolm


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Ruddock, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Salmond, Alex
Wray, Jimmy


Sedgemore, Brian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Short, Clare
Mr. Stephen Byers.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Coe, Sebastian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Congdon, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Conway, Derek


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Ancram, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arbuthnot, James
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Couchman, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cran, James


Ashby, David
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Atkins, Robert
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Day, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baldry, Tony
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dicks, Terry


Bates, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Batiste, Spencer
Dover, Den


Bellingham, Henry
Duncan, Alan


Bendall, Vivian
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dunn, Bob


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Durant, Sir Anthony


Body, Sir Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Booth, Hartley
Elletson, Harold


Boswell, Tim
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bowis, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evennett, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Faber, David


Brazier, Julian
Fabricant, Michael


Bright, Sir Graham
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fishburn, Dudley


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nicholas
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Burns, Simon
Forth, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butcher, John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Butler, Peter
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butterfill, John
French, Douglas


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fry, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gale, Roger


Carttiss, Michael
Gallie, Phil


Cash, William
Gardiner, Sir George


Chapman, Sydney
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Clappison, James
Garnier, Edward


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Gill, Christopher





Gillan, Cheryl
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nicholls, Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gorst, Sir John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Grant,Sir A (SW Cambs)
Norris, Steve


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Ottaway, Richard


Grylls, Sir Michael
Page, Richard


Hague, William
Paice, James


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hannam, Sir John
Pawsey, James


Hargreaves, Andrew
Pickles, Eric


Harris, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Haselhurst, Alan
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Rathbone, Tim


Heald, Oliver
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hendry, Charles
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hicks, Robert
Richards, Rod


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Horam, John
Robathan, Andrew


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Sackville, Tom


Hunter, Andrew
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Jack, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jenkin, Bernard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jessel, Toby
Shersby, Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sims, Roger


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Soames, Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Speed, Sir Keith


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knapman, Roger
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spink, Dr Robert


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Spring, Richard 


Knox, Sir David
Sproat, Iain


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Steen, Anthony


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Stephen, Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Stem, Michael


Legg, Barry
Stewart, Allan


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Streeter, Gary


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sumberg, David


Lightbown, David
Sykes, John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lord, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Luff, Peter
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacKay, Andrew
Thomason, Roy


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Madel, Sir David
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thurnham, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Marlow, Tony
Trend, Michael


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Trotter, Neville


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mates, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Walden, George


Merchant, Piers
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Mills, Iain
Waller, Gary


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Ward, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen






Whitney, Ray
Wood, Timothy


Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wiggin, Sir Jerry



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Dr. Liam Fox and


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. David Willetts.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES

'.—(1) Where any person, court or children's hearing makes any decision in a matter affecting a child, the welfare of the child throughout his childhood shall be their or its paramount consideration, and they shall have regard in particular to—

(a) the views of the child concerned, taking account of his age and maturity, where it is practicable to ascertain such views and the child wishes to express them, and
(b) the general principle that any delay in determining matters relating to a child is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above, a child of 12 years of age or more shall be presumed to be of sufficient age and maturity to form a view.
(3) A court or children's hearing shall not make any order under this Act unless it considers that it would be better for the child that the order be made than that none should be made at all.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the procedures to be applied in identifying children who wish to express views to the children's hearing or court, and in facilitating that expression, and without prejudice to the generality of this section, such regulations may provide for—

(a) a psychological assessment of a child to assess his ability to form views and his maturity;
(b) representation of the child's interests in any proceedings by persons drawn from the panel referred to in section 87 of this Act, and
(c) representation of the child's views by a solicitor.'.—[Mr. Wallace.]


Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 154 and 153.

Mr. Wallace: The new clause to which this one relates was considered in Committee and concerned what were generally referred to throughout the Committee stage—including the evidence taking—as overarching principles. The idea was that the Bill should include, almost as its starting point, a set of principles that would apply to all parts of the Bill, especially those relating to decisions affecting children taken by courts, children's hearings, local authorities and so on.
I tabled the new clause immediately after the Committee ended to ensure that the whole House could return to this important matter. Without making any commitment in Committee—he said that he would have to be sure that the Bill would be improved and strengthened by any additions—the Under-Secretary of State said that the matter would be given some consideration, adding that my aim was a fine one:
We will be prepared to reconsider the issue to determine whether the Bill can be improved and strengthened without imposing unnecessary rigidity … It will involve quite a lot of work as the options will have to be examined very carefully and weighed up.

We will return to the option which provides the most advantages to children."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 23 February 1995; c. 288–89.]
One can only assume that the matter has been given serious thought, that all the difficulties have been weighed up and that the Government have concluded that it is better to do nothing. That is a matter of some regret to me, but I am at least glad that I tabled the new clause to give the House the opportunity to consider the matter further.
The rights of the child are set out in the new clause. They were referred to at some length in Committee, and have been mentioned again this evening. They are: that bodies making decisions affecting children shall have regard to
the views of the child concerned, taking account of his age and maturity … and the general principle that any delay in determining matters relating to a child
should be avoided; and further, that the interests and welfare of the child should be paramount.
I acknowledge that it might be objected that the words "any person" should not form part of the new clause. If the Minister tells me that that is the only technical flaw preventing him from accepting the new clause, I shall not push it to a vote. But if the Government's objections are more fundamental—and they do not believe that there is a need for an overarching set of principles enshrined in the Bill—I would urge the House to come to a decision on the matter.
In legislation relating to Northern Ireland and to England a series of overarching principles are enshrined at the very heart of the provisions. The Government have argued in the past that these overarching principles are specifically imported to certain parts of the Bill, but in many other parts the important principles are missing. Clause 3(5), relating to parental responsibilities and parental rights, includes no reference to the views of the child or the child's welfare. The same can be said of clause 4(1). Clause 5 contains no reference to children's views, and in clause 6 the very principle is abrogated, inasmuch as a failure to take into account the views of children will not constitute a barrier to certain transactions being legitimated.
Clause 9 contains nothing about children's welfare. Clause 11(6) stipulates that
any order … does not adversely affect the position of a person who has, in good faith and for value, acquired any property of the child concerned".
Where do children's views or welfare appear in that? Clause 14, entitled
Jurisdiction and choice of law in relation to certain matters",
includes no reference to delays that may adversely affect children. I could go on taking samples at random. In clause 35(2), which concerns safeguarders, there is nothing about children's views or welfare, or about undue delays in making appointments.
I could more amply illustrate the point if the House wanted to stay here half the night—we could have added a good many more examples of failures to provide for the taking into account of children's views, to ensure that their welfare is paramount, or to avoid undue delay in coming to decisions. Hence the need for a general clause to ensure that all decisions to be taken by courts, children's hearings or local authorities be taken by reference to these principles. That is why such a fundamental provision should be incorporated in the Bill.
I find Government amendment No. 154 objectionable. The Minister will well recall that there was a great deal of objection in Committee to the provision to be found in clause 17(5), which allows the Secretary of State, if he considers it necessary,
to give directions to a total authority as to the exercise of their powers
and to override the best interests of the child. That is a matter that the House should not lightly countenance. The Government must justify the extension of the provision to clause 16, which would be the effect of Government amendment No. 154. The amendment states:
If, for the purpose of protecting members of the public from serious harm … (a) a children's hearing … (b) a court
may decide that the paramountcy of the welfare and best interests of the child can be overridden. The Minister should advise the House of the circumstances in which he thinks it would be legitimate for a children's hearing or a court to make a disposal that did not put the best interests of the child first. The proposal is a serious breach of a principle that has been the subject of common consent throughout the Bill's passage. To extend the proposal when the Minister knew that there was considerable opposition to what was already in the Bill is a serious development and one that the Government must justify, and not on the basis that it is a fall-back provision that might be needed in future.
8 pm
It has already been said that at the heart of the Bill is an obligation to fulfil the undertakings that were made when the Government signed the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Articles 2, 3, 6 and 12 of the convention reflect the principles that are set out in the new clause. When the Secretary of State moved the Bill's Second Reading in the Scottish Grand Committee, he said that the measure was based on the principles contained in the convention. The White Paper states:
Legislation, policy and practice all need to be founded on these clear principles.
Surely the Government have no objection to importing the principles clearly and unequivocally into the Bill.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: When we discussed these matters in Committee the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) did not press his new clause when I undertook to examine whether the main principles that run through the Bill could be gathered into a general statement and inserted in the Bill. We examined the proposition carefully. We examined the merits in detail of adding such a general statement, applying some serious tests. For example, we considered whether such a statement would preserve rather than confuse the duties and obligations set out in the Bill, whether it would create new duties and obligations, whether it could sensitively convey the exceptions and qualifications that are applied to paramountcy, for example, and whether it could convey the policies behind the Bill that are necessary for its effective operation. Finally, and most significant, we considered whether the addition of a general statement would improve the Bill.
Our examination led us to the conclusion that a statement of overarching principles would add to the length of the Bill—just how much would depend on the legal enforceability of the statement—without any very clear benefit in terms of substance. The Bill embodies

principles, and although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's motives I must say that his new clause well illustrates the pitfalls of constructing a general statement.
For example, the new clause, in setting out a principle about delay, does not relate to the time scales that apply to children's cases throughout part II or to the detailed procedural requirements prescribed in the children's hearings and sheriff court rules. The new clause shows the practical problems that face us. I appreciate, however, the value of providing public information to explain both the themes and principles behind legislation, which is necessarily complex, to establish clear duties, powers and rights in relation to children.
We think that the purpose that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has in mind could be more effectively met by an explanatory but concise document publicising the Bill between enactment and implementation, which would outline its themes and principles and explain clearly where they are applied in the Bill. Such a document would not be an alternative Bill. It would be an aid to the understanding for all those who have reason to make use of the Bill's provisions.

Dr. Godman: Is it common practice for sheriffs and judges to seek to interview children privately where appropriate in cases involving what I might describe as warring parents? Do judges and sheriffs take it upon themselves to seek the views of children in such cases?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is not unknown for that to happen. Considerable discretion rests with the court, where there is anxiety, not to alarm or distress the child. I shall note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made and make inquiries.
I hope that, with the undertaking that I have given to consider preparation of a public information document, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will be prepared not to press the new clause to a Division.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister has said that some consideration was given to the making of a general statement. What consideration was given to parallel provisions in the Children Act 1989 and in legislation relating to Northern Ireland? What was it that the Government found attractive in incorporating a clause relating to overarching principles for England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Why do they find it a drawback to do so in legislation that bears on children in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill as a whole, he will find that we are somewhat ahead of the Children Act 1989, which applies south of the border, in many respects. The Bill already incorporates the general principle that the courts, children's hearings and local authorities should regard the welfare of the child as paramount. That is set out in clauses 11, 16, 17 and 83. It provides that the views of children should be taken into account by parents on major decisions affecting their lives and should be involved in decisions taken by courts and children's hearings. That is set out in clauses 6, 11, 16 and 83. The Bill sets out that children's hearings and courts should be satisfied that making a supervision requirement or order is better than making no supervision requirement or order. That is to be found in clauses 11 and 16.
Strong general principles are incorporated in the Bill. Having examined the hon. Gentleman's proposal thoroughly, we believe that if we were to go down the path that the hon. Gentleman has suggested no clear benefit would ensue.
I move on to Government amendments Nos. 154 and 153, which are a response to the undertaking that I gave to consider the strong criticisms made in Committee of clause 17(5)(b). The paragraph was designed very much as a long-stop power, which the Secretary of State might use in exceptional circumstances where for any reason an authority was unable or unwilling to exercise the power set out in paragraph (a) to set aside the paramountcy principle in attempting to deal effectively with a serious situation created by a difficult youngster whom it was looking after. Having weighed the strong arguments with care, we propose removal of the power for the Secretary of State. I hope that the House will accept amendment No. 153.

Dr. Godman: Before the Minister resumes his place—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not sitting down yet.
Amendment No. 154, which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland criticised so strongly, is linked with amendment No. 153 and makes an important addition that is designed to protect members of the public from serious harm from young people who may have shown destructive or violent behaviour to others. The amendment confers on children's hearings and the courts discretion to set aside the principle of paramountcy of the child's welfare in dealing with occasional difficult cases. It complements logically the derogation from paramountcy that is available to local authorities in dealing with a child whom they are looking after. The amendment provides through children's hearings and courts a protection that the public have every right to expect. The exception is a young person who is displaying destructive and intimidating behaviour that could lead to substantial damage to another person.

Dr. Godman: The Minister talked about the publication of a public information document and I for one would welcome such a booklet, but is he in a position to confirm that a similar booklet has been published dealing with child abduction? He will recall that in Committee I asked him precisely that question. Scots need to go to the Lord Chancellor's Department in London for such a booklet. The Minister promised me that an identical booklet would be published to give information north of the border. Has it been published?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do not think that it has, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we shall take forward these matters as soon as possible.
I can answer in a little more detail the hon. Gentleman's earlier question about the sheriff seeking the views of the child. Sheriffs and judges will deal with each case according to the particular circumstances. Existing procedural rules allow for the sheriff to call for reports, which would incorporate the child's views. On occasion, sheriffs seek the child's views in an informal environment. That is what the hon. Gentleman has been

appealing for in legislation for many years. Sheriffs can, in appropriate cases, also appoint a curator ad litem to the child. All those matters are well in hand.

Mr. Wallace: I am disappointed with the Minister's response. I am sure that the matter has been considered, but I do not honestly think that he has made a persuasive case for not pushing the new clause to a vote. He said that inserting such a clause would make the Bill unduly long. It is quite a long Bill, but the clause is not so long. In fact, it is not as long as some of the Government's new clauses that we have debated this evening.
Perhaps the Minister is suggesting that if we did not have the new clause he would be prepared to go through the Bill clause by clause in another place and fill the gaps, which I started to outline in the list from which I was reading. Indeed, if he was to give me an assurance that the Government would be prepared to do that and apply the main principles to each provision, that might be one way to make progress.
I do not think that anyone is necessarily reassured that a glossy publication will in some way fill the gap. It would have no status in law. Glossy publications were sent out to explain the poll tax, but they did not make it function effectively or make it a good measure. I cannot accept that that is in any way a satisfactory solution for something as fundamental as trying to ensure that, in all parts, our obligations under the United Nations convention are observed. Therefore, I invite right hon. and hon. Members to support the new clause in the Lobby.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 80, Noes 232.

Division No. 140]
[8.12 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Hanson, David


Alton, David
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Illsley, Eric


Barnes, Harry
Jamieson, David


Barron, Kevin
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Bennett, Andrew F
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&amp;S)


Byers, Stephen
Khabra, Piara S


Caborn, Richard
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lewis, Terry


Campbell-Savours, D N
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Canavan, Dennis
Lynne, Ms Liz


Chisholm, Malcolm
McAllion, John


Clapham, Michael
McAvoy, Thomas


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Macdonald, Calum


Comarty, Michael
McFall, John


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McKelvey, William


Dalyell, Tarn
Maclennan, Robert


Darling, Alistair
McMaster, Gordon


Davidson, Ian
Mahon, Alice


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Donohoe, Brian H
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Olner, Bill


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pike, Peter L


Fyfe, Maria
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Galbraith, Sam
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Gerrard, Neil
Reid, Dr John


Godman, Dr Norman A
Rendel, David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Graham, Thomas
Rooney, Terry


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Salmond, Alex






Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Soley, Clive
Wray, Jimmy


Spellar, John



Steinberg, Gerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. James Wallace and


Welsh, Andrew
Mrs. Ray Michie.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evennett, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Faber, David


Amess, David
Fabricant, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arbuthnot, James
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Atkins, Robert
Forth, Eric


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
French, Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Fry, Sir Peter


Bates, Michael
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Gallie, Phil


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, Sir George


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gill, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Gillan, Cheryl


Booth, Hartley
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gorst, Sir John


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bright, Sir Graham
Hague, William


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Hannam, Sir John


Budgen, Nicholas
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butcher, John
Hawkins, Nick


Butler, Peter
Heald, Oliver


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cash, William
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coe, Sebastian
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jenkin, Bernard


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dover, Den
Knox, Sir David


Duncan, Alan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Elletson, Harold
Legg, Barry


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lidington, David





Lightbown, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spink, Dr Robert


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sproat, Iain


Malone, Gerald
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marlow, Tony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stephen, Michael


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stem, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Allan


Mills, Iain
Streeter, Gary


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sumberg, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Sykes, John


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Thomason, Roy


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Sir Donald (Cer V)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thurnham, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Page, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Paice, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patrje, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pickles, Eric
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Rathbone, Tim
Watts, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Richards, Rod
Whitney, Ray


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wilkinson, John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Willetts, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Sackville, Tom
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, David (Dover)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Simon Burns and


Sims, Roger
Dr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 4

EMERGENCY EXCLUSION ORDERS

'.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 67(3) of this Act, but subject to section 67(4) thereof, where on the application of a local authority the sheriff is satisfied, in relation to a child, that—

(a) the conditions mentioned in section 67(2) of this Act are met; and
(b) but for this section it would be necessary for an order under section 50 of this Act to be made pending the determination of an application to the sheriff for an exclusion order under section 67,

he may grant an order under this section (to be known as "an emergency exclusion order") excluding from the child's family home any person named in the order (in this part of this Act referred to as the "named person"), for a period not exceeding four days.
(2) Where an emergency exclusion order is made in terms of this section, sections 68 and.69 of this Act shall apply, so far as relevant, to the granting of that order and the local authority shall, if so requested by the named person, assist him to obtain alternative accommodation.


(3) Where an order is made under this section, the Principal Reporter shall forthwith make application to the sheriff for an exclusion order in terms of section 67 of this Act, and, unless previously withdrawn, the application shall be heard by the sheriff within two working days of the lodging of the application.
(4) When an emergency exclusion order is made under the section, such order shall cease to have effect—

(a) on expiry of the time specified by the sheriff in terms of subsection (1) above;
(b) on the refusal by the sheriff to grant an exclusion order, in terms of section 67 of this Act; or
(c) where the Principal Reporter considers that such an order is no longer necessary, having regard to the welfare of the child.'.—[Mr. Wallace.]


Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 101, in clause 67, page 52, line 45, after 'order', insert ['other than an interim order'.]
No. 102, in clause 67, page 53, line 34, at end insert [; and where such an interim order is granted, the local authority shall, if so requested by the named person, assist him to obtain alternative accommodation.'.]
No. 103, in clause 67, page 53, line 34, at end insert—
'(7A) Where—

(a) an application under subsection (7) above has been refused; and
(b) the sheriff considers that the conditions for making a child protection order under section 50 of this Act are satisfied,

he shall make such an order under that section as if the application had been duly made by the local authority under that section rather than this section.'.
No. 104, in clause 67, page 53, line 38, leave out 'subsection' and insert ['subsections (3), (4), (5), (6) and'.]
No. 105, in clause 67, page 53, line 39, leave out 'that subsection' and insert 'subsection (7)'.

Mr. Wallace: I am sure that this new clause 4 has far more practical application than any other clause 4—new or otherwise—that may have been the subject of recent discussion.
The new clause and amendments seek to achieve the same objective in different ways—that is, to provide for emergency exclusion orders. The matter was considered fairly thoroughly in Committee, and I shall not detain the House for long. I know that the Government did not embark on the idea of exclusion orders lightly, but it has been welcomed by most—if not all—of the groups that gave evidence to the Committee, either orally or in written memoranda, and by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It became clear from evidence taken by the Special Standing Committee in both Glasgow and Edinburgh that, if the main purpose of an exclusion order was to prevent children from having to be removed from their homes, it might not always be the right answer, given the time that would be required to give notice that such an order was being sought so that it could be served on an alleged abuser.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman and I have long waged a campaign to put such exclusion orders on the statute book, but would not the new clause complicate matters? Why should the person concerned be excluded
for a period not excluding four days"?

What purpose would that serve?

Mr. Wallace: I am trying to achieve a balance between a number of rights. The child has a strong right not to be removed from the house, but individuals also have a right to continue to live in their main abode. I have no doubt that every effort was made to achieve that balance in the original drafting of clause 67.
If we go a bit further and ask for an interim exclusion order—an exclusion order granted before notice has been given to the person to be excluded, who will not be given the right to appear before the sheriff when the order is sought—it is important to specify a time limit. I therefore propose that the order should lapse after four days unless a full exclusion order has been sought and granted in that time.

Dr. Godman: Can social workers and other interested parties seek to determine within those four days whether the person concerned should be excluded for, say, several weeks, or until the likelihood of a court case materialises?

Mr. Wallace: The order is interim in that sense—not pending a decision by social workers on how long it should last, that is, but pending a proper application to the court. In those circumstances, the person to be excluded—or by that stage, if the new clause is accepted, the excluded person—would have had an opportunity to appear before the court if the provisions of clause 67 in its present form had been used in the first place.
I have not used the word "interim", which I believe appears elsewhere. I wanted to avoid confusion, and considered the word "emergency" a more accurate description of the circumstances that the new clause was intended to meet. The four-day period was suggested because, if an order was sought on Friday, an application to the court would be possible on the following Tuesday.
We heard compelling evidence that the current provisions would not, in many cases, allow children to remain at home, and that if we did not establish an emergency procedure they might well have to be taken into care pending the application and granting of exclusion orders. I was impressed, as I think other Committee members were, by the children who told us that their being taken into care could have been avoided. We should try our utmost to avoid that. Although it is important to have regard to the fact that a person has the right not be removed from his or her home, children should also have such a right. They should not be removed unless it cannot be helped. I hope that a proper balance has been achieved by the new clause.
8.30 pm
I recall that the Minister said that he would reconsider the matter and, on that basis, he asked me not to press the amendment. He said that there was a case for emergency exclusion orders if there was perpetual child abuse and that he would consider the matter carefully in view of what had been said by members of the Committee. Again, the reason for tabling the new clause is to give the Government an opportunity to explain what consideration they have given to the matter. The absence of any provision on their part to deal with it suggests that they may have come to the conclusion that it would not be


appropriate to make such emergency provision. The House should be advised as to what sort of considerations have given rise to that decision.
Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will remember that I quoted from an opinion of counsel that had been given to a consortium for the Bill. It suggested that the sort of provisions included in the new clause would be acceptable in European law. I remember the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) expressing considerable familiarity with the case involving the Belgian Government, which had given rise to that judgment. That is an important point. It is a good benchmark as to whether we are meeting our international obligations. If the new clause satisfies the European convention on human rights, we shall have gone a long way to striking the right balance.
The amendments in my name relate to the issue in one important respect. They are designed to bring about a result similar to that of the new clause. Amendments Nos. 102 to 105 are on pages 814 to 815 of the amendment paper. Amendment No. 102 says that
where such an interim order is granted, the local authority shall, if so requested by the named person, assist him to obtain alternative accommodation.
That meets one of the other concerns that was raised with us. If a person is excluded, there should be no question of that person not having proper accommodation. That clarifies the position. Provision is possibly already there in general terms, but the new clause would make it explicit that the local authority, having sought an exclusion order, should then find or help a person to obtain alternative accommodation.
I hope that I shall not stretch the relevance of this too much, but in moving amendment No. 54 in Committee, I made the point that clause 67 contained no provision for circumstances where the child was away from home. In response, the Minister accepted that the amendment was sensible and agreed that he would table a suitable Government amendment to give it effect. I do not see any amendment tonight to give that effect. A reassurance that it will be tabled in another place will be welcome.

Mr. Connarty: I am happy to support the proposal that new clause 4 should be adopted by the Government. We would be sadly disappointed if they showed themselves to be lacking in vision, or if they did not have the honest approach to the problem that we thought they were offering the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) when he tabled a similar amendment in Committee. Clearly, the key to this issue is clause 67(2), which gives the conditions of an exclusion order and relates to the new clause. Clause 67(2) states that the conditions are

"(a) that the child has suffered, is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm as a result of any conduct, or any threatened or reasonably apprehended conduct of the named person; and
(b) that the making of an exclusion order against the named person

(i) is necessary for the protection of the child; and
(ii) would better safeguard the child's welfare than removing the child from the family home."


We listened to the young people from Who Cares? Scotland, who said that they are excluded from their home when there is an abuser in the home. They asked why they were punished twice and made the victims twice. That was clearly how they saw the position. They are object of the accused abuser. They are then victimised by being removed from their home while the

accused abuser remains in the home. The trauma of that exclusion—the fact that they are torn away from the family home—which might last for quite a long time, as under a child protection order, is often the worst part of what happens.
The new clause is excellent, as was the similar amendment in Committee. The proposal is that the emergency order would lie for four days. Under subsection (3), the emergency order would bring the person to court before a sheriff within two working days, which is already in clause 67. Applications would be heard within two days.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government intend to table amendments on this subject, but for reasons that I shall give in a moment, we have not been able to do so for tonight, as we intended? I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have not given up on the issue.

Mr. Connarty: That is excellent information. If it had been passed on to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland he may have made a different and probably much shorter speech. I shall shorten mine by underlining the fact that I am worried that the question turns on whether the sheriff could react to the emergency exclusion order as proposed in subsection (3) within two working days. It is important that four days have been drafted correctly, that the two working days guarantees that the exclusion, particularly of an accused abuser, will not be prolonged any longer than is necessary, and that if the accusation turns out, in the sheriff's eyes, not to be valid, the family would be reunited.

Dr. Godman: Amendment No. 102 states, among other things, that the local authority shall assist an excluded person to obtain alternative accommodation. I think that I am right in saying that the Minister talked about assisting such a person to find alternative accommodation. Did he say that thinking of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968? If so was he referring to section 12, which allows a local authority in certain circumstances to provide financial assistance to a person? If a person is to be excluded from the family home, no question exists of him going along to the Benefits Agency to seek assistance. If he is on income support, he would not be able to afford to furnish a place. Presumably, such a person would be assisted in finding lodgings. If so, would that be by way of section 12 of the 1968 Act?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I first deal with the general issue relating to exclusion orders? That was an extremely important part of the Bill. It was one of the major innovations contained within it and one of the main things sought by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). It marks an important landmark in the protection of children and it has been widely welcomed.
The detailed arrangements have been the subject of considerable debate and substantial evidence to the Special Standing Committee in Scotland from a wide range of bodies. The new clause and the associated amendments focus on the main issue that confronted us during discussions on provisions for exclusion orders. The issue is whether it should be possible to exclude a suspected abuser from a child's home by virtue of an


order or an interim order granted by a sheriff without prior intimation to the person to be excluded or an opportunity being provided for that person to be heard by or represented before the sheriff.
As my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State made clear during the evidence taking, and as I made clear in Committee, we were prepared to listen carefully to the views expressed on the proposals in the Bill. We have done so and it might be helpful to the House, in considering the new clause and the amendments, if I say that the Government are, in principle, ready to amend the Bill to provide for exclusion on that basis.
However, I have to tell the House that the work on that is not yet complete. It has proved more complex than we had expected—in particular, in ensuring that the provisions for such an emergency exclusion provide for a proper recourse, by the excluded person, to the courts for a judicial review. We had to have regard to the requirements of the United Nations convention on human rights and to ensuring the correct entitlement of the person together with the right procedural steps in the courts, so as to ensure proper judicial review. I had hoped to get that done by Report, but it has proved extremely complex.
On the main point of principle—that it should it possible for an interim exclusion order to be granted without intimation, subject to a proper judicial examination—we agree with the intention behind the new clause and the related amendments. However, I am bound to advise the House that, as they stand, they have certain technical problems. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will not press the new clause. We undertake to bring forward amendments in the other place that will provide for an exclusion order to be available in an emergency—amendments that will stand the test of time.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister has given a welcome response to the debate. It has given us considerable encouragement and we look forward with interest to the amendments that he will table in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 7

DUTY TO REPORT SUSPICION OF CHILD ABUSE

'.—(1) It shall be the duty of those staff in establishments who have direct concern for the care, training or education of children, or young people under 16 years of age, to report to the director or superior of the establishment without delay any reasonable suspicion that any such child or young person within the establishment has been abused whether before or subsequent to that child's or young person's admission to the establishment.
(2) It shall be the duty of the director or superior of the establishment referred to in subsection (1) above to make enquiry into the reported suspicions and, if appropriate, to refer the matter to the relevant authority.
(3) In this section, "relevant authority" means the education or social work department, the Principal Reporter or the police force for the area of the local authority district in which the establishment is situated.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John McFall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
My new clause would make it a duty to report any suspicion of child abuse. It places a duty on staff in establishments that have responsibility for the care, training or education of children or young people under 16 years of age to report to the director or superior in the establishment, without delay, any reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused, whether before or subsequent to that child's admission to the establishment.
Under the new clause, the director or superior would be obliged to investigate the matter and, if appropriate, refer it to the relevant authority, which means the education or social work departments, the principal reporter or the police force in the local authority area in which that establishment is situated.
The new clause arises out of personal experience and I take full responsibility for it. I thank the Minister for his co-operation and courtesy during the past few weeks relating to the information that I sent him and his reply to me. As the hon. Gentleman kindly pointed out, my original amendment would have resulted in rather harsh consequences as there was a criminal aspect to it. For example, he said that "reasonable suspicion" was a matter for individual judgment and that it would not sit easily with a criminal penalty. I had not foreseen that problem, but I have now altered my proposal, so although there is still a duty, it is an obligation rather than something that would attract a criminal penalty.
I consulted a number of people outwith the House on this matter. One was Mrs. Mary Hartnell, the director of social work for Strathclyde. She said:
While there is whole hearted support for the aim of making all forms of care for children free from abuse, I would suggest that this subject would perhaps be better dealt with in rules and regulations rather than in primary legislation. This could lead to all organisations having to have procedures in place whereby on receipt of allegations of abuse, staff would be required to pass these on to the appropriate manager who would then be bound to consider whether sufficient concerns existed to warrant the involvement of the police. Staff failing to observe these procedures would then be subject to disciplinary action.
That is why I have included the principal reporter and the education and social work departments, as well as the police.
Mrs. Hartnell continued:
While our current child protection procedures require this course of action, legislation could be formulated to make it compulsory for all organisations offering some form of care to children to be bound by similar procedures.
That highlights a gap in the existing legislation.
8.45 pm
I also consulted Professor Kathleen Marshall, who is doing a study for the Independent Schools Information Service, which covers an area where at present no regulations exist. She gave me good advice, as did Miss Kay Tisdall from Children in Scotland and the Children Consortia. I also contacted various individuals, advocates and Queen's counsel, and in particular, the Centre for Residential Child Care, under Meg Lindsay. That is a partnership between the university of Strathclyde, Langside college, Save the Children Fund and Who Cares? Scotland. The message from all of them is that the intention behind my previous amendment was too prescriptive, but nevertheless something needed to be done because the procedures and guidelines do not work as they should.
In December, I tabled a number of parliamentary questions on the issue. One asked the Secretary of State for Scotland:
how many a) teachers, b) social workers, c) nurses, d) doctors, e) community education workers and f) other professionals working with children have been found guilty of crimes of indecency or of lewd and libidinous behaviour against persons under 21 years of age in each of the past five years." —[Official Report, 20 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1059]
The Minister replied that the information was not available. The fact that that information is not categorised shows a weakness in the statistical gathering for which the Minister is responsible.
There must be a base line. If we are to err—and certainly that is possible—we must do so on the side of child protection. That is what the voluntary organisations and others conveyed to me when I consulted them. That is why they think that debate on the new clause would be useful. They feel that it will throw the spotlight on the whole issue of child abuse.
I accept that the debate is in its embryonic form. Indeed, the CRCC has said that it would like to hold a seminar on the issue, to include all the relevant professionals, so that we can take the debate forward and learn from the experience of other countries—for example, Australia and America, where reporting is mandatory, and Canada. How do the systems work in those countries?
As I said earlier, my interest stems from my personal experience as a school teacher, but also as a Member of Parliament. A number of constituents have contacted me directly because they were sexually abused when they were young people—one, in particular, when in a residential establishment. Those people are now adults, but the legacy of the traumatic experience lives with them 20 years after the incidents. Even today, all these years later, they regularly feel alone, vulnerable and guilty.

Mrs. Fyfe: I fully support the intention behind my hon. Friend's new clause. Does he agree that as well as the experiences that he is relating, we have all read the appalling newspaper accounts of incidents when young people and children have been in residential care—the sort of incidents that no one could have imagined before they read those accounts? We must ensure that children are safeguarded when they are in residential establishments. As my hon. Friend says, the debate is still at an early stage, but I am glad that he has tabled his new clause.

Mr. McFall: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In the past, for one reason or another, a veil has been drawn over the incident; there has been a conspiracy of silence. That cannot be allowed to continue. I have tabled this new clause to push the debate forward.
The problem is widespread, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said, and it affects all areas of society. Indeed, only a few weeks ago I was reading an article written by Mr. Alan Draper, who is chairman of a newly formed team to advise the bishops' conference of Scotland on the handling of allegations of sexual abuse made against Church personnel. He said:
What has to be faced is that the abuse of children is widespread. It flourishes in a society which is based on competition and power and is undermined by violence towards women and their sexual

exploitation. The challenge to transform society becomes enormous when we begin to realise the terrible social cost of the toleration of child sexual abuse. Children are powerless to speak for themselves.
That is very true. Children find themselves in an unequal relationship. Adults have the power and children are powerless. People have to speak for children and the law must be right for them. It is extremely important that we put the proper procedures into place.
Mr. Alan Draper indicates that the abuse of children is not only a Church problem but a social problem. It highlights the fact that our society is not yet mature. Anything smacking of sex is considered distasteful and swept under the carpet. To this House, it should be the shame of the victim that matters. Victims have to go through hoops to be believed and the shame is directed and transmitted towards them rather than the perpetrator. They are placed in circumstances almost the same as those faced by the victims of rape 10, 15 or 20 years ago, when it was never the man's fault; "the woman's skirt was too short"; "too much was being revealed"; and so on. Only through persistent education of society was it realised that it was the man's fault. He did not have to give in to temptation.
The Zero Tolerance campaign, which is well established in Scotland and exists in a substantial number of local authorities, is a good example of the product of such education. With regard to sexual and other abuse, the need for education is paramount. Education of parents is essential. If they have to be told to look for signs of drug abuse, however distasteful that may be, they have to look for signs of abuse in children. The message to children from this debate is:
Do not accept someone interfering with you. Do not think that you are to blame.
Even after a successful campaign, some people will fall through the net and some children will be victimised, so we need a mechanism to deal with such cases. I suggest that we consider such areas as enhanced compensation—state-funded—but, more importantly, counselling. Counselling on a long-term basis is required. This is a victim's issue and a hidden victim at that.
The Scottish Office has recognised the problem because it commissioned a report, "The Child Sexual Abuser", which was published last December. The report was based on four years' research conducted by teams at Edinburgh and Cardiff universities. It identified four different types of child abuser. Incest abusers proved to be most common; paedophile accounted for 30 per cent. of abusers in the survey; random abusers were considered the most dangerous; and deniers comprised 10 per cent. of the survey.
The chairperson of the team which produced that report, Professor Lorraine Waterhouse, said:
The Child Sexual Abusers Report makes very depressing reading and many of the discoveries have shocked us"—
despite having worked in that field of research for some time. Professor Waterhouse added:
The actual sexual behaviour towards the children did involve more aggression than I think we had concluded.
They found that in almost half the cases studied, violence or physical coercion was used. Even among those who claimed not to have used violence, it could not be dismissed. One such man, a paedophile who claimed not to harm his victims,' stated for the report:
I have seen myself putting my hands over the boy's mouth and lift him up, place him in the bushes, put him on the ground, take his clothes off him. That is about it. Nae violence.


The survey also found that more abusers than was previously thought had sexual intercourse with their victims. More than half those convicted of incest had full sex with their victims. Offenders are usually known to their victims as fathers, stepfathers or family friends, and only one abuser in 10 is a stranger to the child. Abusers ranged in age from 10 to 81.
The message from that report is that the abusers are not monsters; they can be nice people whom the victim knows. Society has to be prepared and draw up proper procedures. That is why social workers are calling for a paedophile register. David Colvin, the deputy general secretary of the British Association of Social Workers, said:
It is astonishing that we have not had information about the people who commit sexual abuse before now. Scotland Yard believe there are more than 4,000 practising paedophiles in Britain and the current method of approaching the problem from the child protection register is absurd; listing the children not the offenders".
About 1,500 children go to hearings each year to complain about abuse and in only 2 to 5 per cent. of cases are adults prosecuted. That is a shocking clear-up rate for a very serious offence.
It is very important that we take on board such comments from professionals and others and do something about them. My new clause is a new idea. It will formalise something which already happens. Local authorities have guidelines and procedures on how individuals should behave, but the new clause will put them on a statutory footing. It will place an obligation—a duty—on staff to report to their superiors any suspicion of abuse: to take action. If they breach that duty, they will not be liable in the criminal courts, but may be liable in the civil courts for damages. Obviously, that will depend on each individual case.
The new clause would impose a similar duty on a director or superior to refer the matter to the relevant authority and "relevant authority" means either the principal reporter, the social work department or the police. The proposal is not cumulative. It is self-standing and applies to whatever agency is appropriate. If the case is clearly criminal, it will go to the police. If it is another form of abuse, it may go to the reporter or be reported to the social work department.
I realise that the new clause is not definitive. Its main purpose is to impose a duty on individuals. It would assist in preventing people from entering into a conspiracy of silence as that creates a climate in which abuse can flourish. I hope that the new clause will aerate the debate as there is an insufficient political wind behind the issue at the moment. I hope that it will help lift the veil of secrecy and pierce the conspiracy of silence and, in the process, contribute to transparency in human relationships.
By accepting or amending my new clause, the Government and the Opposition will assist in promoting in society a more mature, honest and direct approach so that fewer children will suffer the trauma of sexual abuse and those who do suffer that trauma will be dealt with on a compassionate and constructive basis.

Dr. Godman: The Minister may well reject new clause 7, with which I have considerable sympathy. He may suggest that the problems highlighted by my hon. Friend

the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) can best be dealt with through regulations or guidelines. However, it seems to me that the employing authorities of the establishments referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton have a responsibility. Perhaps the Minister should be focusing his attention on the sanctions that he can impose by way of regulations against employing authorities which have betrayed the interests of the children in their care.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton referred to all sorts of establishments. I want to raise one or two points in relation to the protection that should and must be given to children who have been taken into care. We sometimes seem to imagine that when a child has been rescued from a violent parent or abuser and has been placed in residential care, that is the end of the line, whereas in some instances it may well be the start of further torment for the child.
9 pm
What guidelines are given to local authorities in relation to those employed in residential homes for young children? There must be a very important role in that regard for the employing authorities to ensure that certain people are not employed and that they become unemployable. There is a major responsibility in that regard on the employers to be very tough gatekeepers and to refuse employment to those about whom they have well founded suspicions in regard to sexual proclivities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton referred to the need for the director or superior to make inquiries into such suspicions. Again, I think that that might well apply most appropriately through guidelines issued to employing authorities. I am concerned that children taken into care within the framework of a new small authority may be placed in a residential home in another authority's jurisdiction. How is the local authority which has care of the child able to monitor what goes on in a home outwith its district?
In relation to the new clause, in terms of defending the interests of youngsters against those who are in loco parentis to them, does the Minister envisage that the authority with care will be able to monitor homes to which children have been sent outwith its own area? Will the local authority with care have the right to demand access to the personal files of people employed in those homes? Does the Minister envisage that? It may sound harsh to say that the authority with care in cases of children placed outwith that authority's region should have access to the personal files, but too many people seem to get through the gates and past the selectors and are given responsibility for the care of children when manifestly they are not fit individuals to take on such responsibilities.
When the Minister argues the case against new clause 7, he should say something about the efforts of the Scottish Office, local authorities and other organisations to eliminate from such occupational roles the paedophiles and others who are not fit to come anywhere near children, especially vulnerable children who have already suffered distress and harm. Not enough is done to weed out those people during the selection process. Too often we discover the whereabouts of such people after complaints have been made. Also, is it not a good idea for such residential homes to be restricted to as few children as possible so that, first, their care can be of the


best quality and, secondly, they can be in a family environment, or close to a family environment, rather than an institutional environment?
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton has raised some important questions. I am not sure that his new clause will be accepted today, but such concerns have been raised with all of us, particularly in my case when children have been taken into care. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of residential social workers are very fine people—I have met many of them, and I know that they are fine people—but there is always the odd bod who seems to slip through the selection process and is placed in charge of very vulnerable young children. Somehow or other we must prevent such squalid, seedy characters from obtaining those jobs in the first place.

Mr. Galbraith: I support the new clause. It is an important part of the jigsaw that we are trying to put together for the protection of children. I am sure that some people will be unhappy with what we have done in the Bill and will complain that we will not get it right and so on, but the new clause is an important part of the mosaic of the Bill that we are trying to establish. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said that child abuse is widespread. I am not sure what he meant by "widespread", but one thing is true: child abuse is certainly a problem, and one that we must tackle.
Two problems have hindered our dealing with establishments in the past. One is that, until recently, child abuse was not taken seriously enough. It was considered to be a lesser crime: someone had committed a wee indiscretion and if we all kept it quiet it could be overcome. Secondly, some establishments seek to protect their good name. There is nothing wrong with that; we would all wish to do that. Again, if one thinks that it is a lesser crime, one might not take appropriate action. We cannot allow either of those two problems to prevent proper management dealing with cases of child abuse or to produce what my hon. Friend described as the conspiracy of silence that occurs in all walks of life and in all establishments which seek to look after themselves. The new clause goes some way to dealing with that matter, but I do not know whether it will be perfect.
Are there are any other practical steps to be taken? What rights do non-local authority establishments which look after children—my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised the point in a slightly different way—have to examine the employment records of the individuals they employ? Do they have to take the word of the establishment or do they have access to the records of people involved in such establishments?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) was a deputy head teacher at Bellarmine secondary school, which has very high standards, and I appreciate the importance of this extremely vital issue.
Child abuse, whatever form it takes, is an obscenity which must be tackled with the utmost vigour. Staff in care establishments and teachers in educational institutions are well placed, as the hon. Gentleman was in the past, to spot indications of abuse, and a considerable number of cases brought to the attention of investigating agencies come from that source. However, it seems

somewhat heavy handed to impose a statutory duty on staff to report any reasonable suspicion that a child may have been abused.
In response to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), I can say that local authorities already have in place clear arrangements in relation to care establishments and educational establishments for referring suspicions of child abuse to statutory agencies. Those are complemented by child abuse awareness-raising training, and child protection training generally can be used to underpin the procedures adopted by establishments for reporting suspicions of abuse.

Mr. Galbraith: Child abuse awareness training is all very well, but we are talking about cases where such awareness training is not needed. These are cases where someone knows that abuse is going on, but still does not report it to the statutory agencies. That is what the new clause is aimed at. It is concerned not with getting people to recognise child abuse, but with getting people to report it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Following the Orkney inquiry and representations, guidance is being prepared which will be issued to cover that issue. Local authorities can also monitor institutions, and they have the right to have access to the files. It is important for suspicions to be reported, and to be properly investigated if they are found to have substance, but I feel that placing a statutory duty on staff to report such suspicions goes a little too far. There is a general duty to report cases to the reporter. In principle, the hon. Gentleman's point is correct that reporting must take place, but to put a compulsion to do so in statute is a little heavy handed.

Dr. Godman: The Minister said that he believes that local authority staff have access to files in such establishments. Does that include access to files concerning employees of such establishments, because that is important? I should hate to have a social work secret police in operation, but it is important that local authorities have knowledge of the people working in the establishments.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: When making appointments of people to work with children, local authorities can consult the Scottish Criminal Records Office for advice on any previous convictions, and that is absolutely right. Local authorities are aware of the need for careful selection of staff, and we regard that as extremely important. There is no question of a witch hunt, but the protection of children should be given a high priority.
With regard to the inspection of residential establishments, I can confirm that section 67(a) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—to be replaced by paragraph 29(6) of the Bill—gives powers of inspection in relation to the records of residential establishments. That covers the point raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).

Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for his constructive reply. Mary Hartnell, a director of social work, wrote to


me recently to say that while child protection procedures in certain areas require such a course of action, legislation could be formulated to make it compulsory for all organisations offering some form of care to children to be bound by similar procedures. That does not happen at the moment.
Only a few months ago, there was a story in the newspapers about allegations of misconduct at the Rudolf Steiner school in Aberdeen. Lothian region had placed some children at that school, but it could do nothing about the allegations because the school was not covered by the measures. I make no comment about what happened in Aberdeen; I merely refer to the principles of the issue.
The Minister said in his response to me dated 20 April:
the Scottish Council of Independent Schools has commissioned Professor Kathleen Marshall to draft child protection guidelines for independent schools, and this is being done in consultation with HMI and SWSI.
So there are not even guidelines at present. All that I ask is that there should be a general duty. I do not intend to criminalise people, and I took seriously the Minister's comments about not wanting to be too heavy handed. My amendment states that the superior or the director has a duty to investigate, if appropriate: in other words, the doubt—if there is any doubt—would reside with the director or the superior, and it might not be taken further.
9.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) referred, as did the Minister, to my background in education. In the past, teachers have come to me and said that they had suspicions but that the head teacher did not want to take the issue further because it would reflect on his stewardship of the school or the status of the school in the local community. So investigation can be cut off at a basic level. That should not happen: there should be a duty and obligation to report and it should be written into the law. In no way do we wish to criminalise, but we wish to provide the most adequate protection available for young people. I believe that Parliament could do that by accepting the new clause today.
I ask the Minister to take on board in a constructive manner, as he has done today, the comments that Mary Hartnell has made about the procedures and the need for all organisations to be bound by similar procedures. May we have a commitment today that the Minister will consider some legislation so that when the Bill goes to another place we have some hope that something can be done?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I will refer what he said to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. In the case of the Rudolf Steiner school, the inspectorate was put in immediately. That was helpful in clearing the air in that particular case. It performed an invaluable role. I will refer the points that the hon. Gentleman has made to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Mr. McFall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Amendment made: No. 112, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'in any action arising out of any breach of'
and insert
', or to defend, in any proceedings as respects' —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 2

PARENTAL RIGHTS

Amendments made: No. 113, in page 2, line 24, after first 'and' insert 'direct'.
No. 114, in page 2, line 37, leave out
'in any action arising out of an infringement of'
and insert
', or to defend, in any proceedings as respects'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 3

PROVISIONS RELATING BOTH TO PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND TO PARENTAL RIGHTS

Dr. Godman: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 44, at end insert—
'(5A) An arrangement under subsection (5) above as to the exercise of parental responsibilities or parental rights shall be made only with the agreement of any other person who has parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to the child; and such arrangement may be made—

(a) in the case of a child of twelve years of age or below, only after consulting the child, or
(b) in the case of a child of thirteen years of age or above, only with the agreement of the child.'.

At first glance, it might appear that I am being somewhat heavy handed with this amendment, but I am concerned about the purpose of clause 3(5). Is it advisable to allow a parent to entrust parenting responsibilities to a third person unrelated or even related to the child without the permission of the other parent and without, say, the approval of a court? I believe that the potential for conflict is huge, especially in relation to the rights given to parents under clause 2.
A child aged over 12 years should be able to give his or her consent to any proposed transfer of parental responsibilities. The agreement of a child under 12 years should also be sought in each and every case. If that is not done the child will be treated as a piece of property, which I am sure is not the Minister's objective.
As I have said, the amendment may appear somewhat heavy handed. When looking through it I thought that the Minister might ask whether one should have to apply for a court order before sending bairns off on holiday with their granny. Despite my reservations, there is concern about the purpose of clause 3(5). I believe, and it is the Minister's conviction as well, that where appropriate a child over the age of 12 should be able to consent to any transfer of such awesome responsibilities. Even children under the age of 12 should be consulted at all times. I should be grateful to hear the Minister's response to my somewhat defensive description of the amendment as heavy handed.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have some sympathy for the intention of the amendment but it is unnecessary and in some ways impractical. For example,


I am not sure how one would consult a very young infant before asking the grandmother to look after the infant for a couple of hours. More seriously, the amendment is unnecessary because clause 6 already provides for the views of the child to be considered.
It would also be wrong to limit the power of a parent to make arrangements for the care of the child in an emergency when it might not be practical to consult the other parent. It would also conflict with clause 2(2) which gives parents the power to exercise their parental rights independently. However, we hope to cover the consultation of the other parent when a major decision is involved in a Government amendment to clause 6.

Dr. Godman: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 115, in page 3, line 47, at end insert—
'; and where any arrangements so made are such that the child is a foster child for the purposes of the Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984, those arrangements are subject to the provisions of that Act.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 4

ACQUISITION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES BY NATURAL FATHER

Amendment made: No. 116, in page 4, line 3, after 'mother' insert
',whatever age they may be,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 117, in page 4, line 35, after 'maturity' insert
'and to those of any other person who has parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to the child (and wishes to express those views)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 118.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I commend the amendments to the House.

Mrs. Fyfe: There is a lack of clarity in the drafting of amendment No. 118 because there is some doubt about who is the "his" referred to in line 42 of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister would make a note of that and return to it later.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Amendment No. 117 was tabled in response to the concern of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) to encourage separated or divorced parents to maintain a co-operative relationship towards their children. It would be helpful to insert an amendment about reaching any major decision concerning the fulfilling of parental responsibility or right to have regard to the views of any other person with parental responsibilities.
Amendment No. 118 was felt necessary to provide a reference to such a person as well as the existing reference to a child. As the hon. Lady has requested I shall look at the drafting. However, a person acting as the child's legal representative is not challengeable solely on the ground that the person mentioned in amendment No. 117 was not

consulted or that due regard was not given to his or her views before the transaction was entered into. This reflects the provision in relation to consulting the child.

Mr. Connarty: I thank the Minister for showing that he listened to some of what I said in Committee, although perhaps some of my hon. Friends did not.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 118, in page 4, line 41, after 'child' insert
',or a person with parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to the child,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 9

SAFEGUARDING OF CHILD'S PROPERTY

Amendment proposed: No. 119, in page 7, line 11, leave out 'by regulations'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mrs. Fyfe: I wish to ask a brief question about the intention of leaving out the words, "by regulations". May we conclude that scrutiny of the contents will be reduced if the words, "by regulations" are left out? The Minister should explain that a little further.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These are small technical amendments, which remove unnecessary references to regulations. Clause 88 states that the Secretary of State's powers
to make rules or regulations shall he exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
The amendments make no material change but offer a useful tidying and simplification of clauses 9 and 26. I am glad to confirm that they are technical and nothing substantial or secretive is being slipped through.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

COURT ORDERS RELATING TO PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES ETC.

Amendments made: No. 120, in page 7, line 31, at beginning insert 'In the relevant circumstances'.
No. 121, in page 7, line 39, leave out 'In the relevant circumstances'.
No. 122, in page 7, line 46, after 'person' insert
'(provided he is at least sixteen years of age or is a parent of the child)'.
No. 123, in page 8, line 2, leave out 'with whom a child' and insert
'—

(i) with whom; or
(ii) if with different persons alternately or periodically, with whom during what periods,

a child'.
No. 124, in page 8, line 23, leave out '(2)' and insert '(1)'.
No. 125, in page 8, line 25, leave out 'subsection (1) above' and insert 'that subsection'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in page 8, line 26, leave out 'claiming an interest' and insert—
'who—

(i) not having, and never having had, parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to the child, claims an interest;


(ii) has parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to the child;
(iii) has had, but for a reason other than is mentioned in subsection (3A) below no longer has, parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to the child'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 127 and 128.

Lord James Douglás-Hamilton: In the case of "In re D and Another (Minors)", the House of Lords decided that an order freeing the child for adoption and vesting the parental rights and duties of the mother in an adoption agency had the effect of depriving the mother of being able to apply for custody.
Section 3 of the 1986 Act is being replaced by clause 11(3) of the Bill. It is therefore thought that it would be desirable to give statutory effect to the House of Lords' judgment in relation to orders under clause 11. This was a case where the child had been adopted.
These are altogether sensible amendments and I commend them to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 127, in page 8, line 29, at end insert�ž
'(3A) The reasons referred to in subsection (3)(a)(iii) above are that the parental responsibilities or parental rights have been—

(a) extinguished on the making of an adoption order;
(b) transferred to an adoption agency on the making of an order declaring the child free for adoption;
(c) extinguished by virtue of subsection (9) of section 30 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (provision for enactments about adoption to have effect with modifications) on the making of a parental order under subsection (1) of that section; or
(d) transferred to a local authority by a parental responsibilities order.'.

No. 128, in page 8, line 32, at end insert—
'(4A) In subsection (3A) above—
adoption agency" and "adoption order" have the same meanings as they are given, in section 18 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978, by section 65(1) of that Act; and
parental responsibilities order" has the meaning given by section 76(1) of this Act.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 14

JURISDICTION AND CHOICE OF LAW IN RELATION TO CERTAIN MATTERS

Amendments made: No. 129, in page 10, line 44, after 'made' insert
'(the date of death of the testator being taken to be the date of appointment where an appointment was made by will),'.
No. 130, in page 11, line 1, leave out subsection (4).—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 15

INTERPRETATION OF PART I

Amendments made: No. 131, in page 11, line 18, after '30,' insert
'someone, of whatever age, who is'.
No. 133, in page 12, line 7, at end insert—

'(6) Where a child has legal capacity to sue, or to defend, in any civil proceedings, he may nevertheless consent to be represented in those proceedings by any person who, had the child lacked that capacity, would have had the responsibility to act as his legal representative.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 16

WELFARE OF CHILD AND CONSIDERATION OF HIS VIEWS

Amendment proposed: No. 154, in page 13, line 4, at end insert—
'(5) If, for the purpose of protecting members of the public from serious harm (whether or not physical harm)—

(a) a children's hearing consider it necessary to make a decision under or by virtue of this Part of this Act which (but for this paragraph) would not be consistent with their affording paramountcy to the consideration mentioned in subsection (1) above, they may make that decision; or
(b) a court considers it necessary to make a determination under or by virtue of Chapters 1 to 3 of this Part of this Act which (but for this paragraph ) would not be consistent with its affording such paramountcy, it may make that determination.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Mrs. Fyfe: Just a brief question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This has already been debated. I have just put the Question.

Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that it has been debated but we have not voted on it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall put the question and, if hon. Members wish to vote, they may do so. We cannot debate it further.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 63.

Division No. 141]
[9.30 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butcher, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Butler, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cash, William


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Atkins, Robert
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Congdon, David


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Conway, Derek


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bates, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Batiste, Spencer
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bellingham, Henry
Couchman, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cran, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Quent'n (Stamford)


Body, Sir Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Booth, Hartley
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bowis, John
Devlin, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dicks, Terry


Brandreth, Gyles
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Bright, Sir Graham
Duncan, Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Browning, Mrs Angela
Dunn, Bob


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Budgen, Nicholas
Dykes, Hugh


Burns, Simon
Elletson, Harold






Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Monro, Sir Hector


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Nelson, Anthony


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Faber, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Oppenheim, Phillip


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Ottaway, Richard


Fishbum, Dudley
Page, Richard


Forman, Nigel
Paice, James


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Forth, Eric
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Pickles, Eric


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Porter, David (Waveney)


French, Douglas
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fry, Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Gale, Roger
Richards, Rod


Gallie, Phil
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Gardiner, Sir George
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gill, Christopher
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gillan, Cheryl
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Gorst, Sir John
Sackville, Tom


Grant,Sir A(SW Cambs)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Shersby, Michael


Hague, William
Sims, Roger


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hampson, Dr Keith
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hannam, Sir John
Soames, Nicholas


Hargreaves, Andrew
Spencer, Sir Derek


Harris, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Heald, Oliver
Spink, Dr Robert


Hendry, Charles
Sproat, Iain


Hicks, Robert
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Stephen, Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Stem, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Streeter, Gary


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Sumberg, David


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)
Sykes, John


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jack, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Jenkin, Bernard
Thomason, Roy


Jessel, Toby
Thompson, Sir Donald (Cer V)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


King, Rt Hon Tom
Thumham, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Trotter, Neville


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knox, Sir David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Waller, Gary


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Ward, John


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Legg, Barry
Waterson, Nigel


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Watts, John


Lidington, David
Wells, Bowen


Lightbown, David
Whitney, Ray


Lord, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Luff, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


MacKay, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Willetts, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Malone, Gerald
Wolfson, Mark


Marlow, Tony
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)



Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Merchant, Piers
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Mills, Iain
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, Camp;S)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McAllion, John


Barnes, Harry
McAvoy, Thomas


Battle, John
McFall, John


Betts, Clive
McKelvey, William


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Maclennan, Robert


Caravan, Dennis
McMaster, Gordon


Chisholm, Malcolm
Mahon, Alice


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll amp; Bute)


Dalyell, Tarn
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Darling, Alistair
Olner, Bill


Davidson, Ian
Pike, Peter L


Dixon, Don
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Donohoe, Brian H
Raynsford, Nick


Dowd, Jim
Redmond, Martin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Reid, Dr John



Rendel, David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Flynn, Paul
Rooney, Terry


Foster, Don (Bath)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Fyfe, Maria
Simpson, Alan


Galbraith, Sam
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Uin
Spellar, John


Graham, Thomas
Steinberg, Gerry


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hanson, David
Wallace, James


Hardy, Peter
Welsh, Andrew


Hoyie, Doug
Wray, Jimmy


Illsley, Eric



Ingram, Adam
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Dr. Norman A. Godman and


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mr. Michael Conarty.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 17

DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO CHILD LOOKED AFTER BY THEM

Amendment made: No. 153, in page 13, line 44, leave out from 'so' to end of line 4 in page 14.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 18

LOCAL AUTHORITY PLANS FOR SERVICES FOR CHILDREN

Amendment proposed: No. 155, in page 14, line 29, after 'of' insert —(a)'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mrs. Ewing: I shall make a brief intervention on the provision of services for children by local authorities. The Minister will be aware that I am deeply concerned about issues pertaining to children with special needs and the assessment of those needs. Does he feel that the amendment will go towards meeting many of the arguments that were propounded in Committee, especially those directed to multi-disciplinary approaches to the assessment of children with special needs? To some extent, the amendments meet some of the concerns that were expressed in Committee. Does the Minister feel that the tabling of amendments in another place would lead to a more effective outcome? This is a matter of great concern to many people.

Mrs. Fyfe: As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has said, clause 18, as amended, would be fine as far as it goes, but it still contains nothing about expanding the definition of children in need. The clause remains narrow. There is still nothing in it about respite care or


disabilities. The Government have undertaken to do something about carers, but carers are not mentioned in the amendment. If the Minister can assure us that these points will be taken up in another place, we shall not pursue the matter.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These matters are still being considered. I can assure the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that amendments to be considered this evening will ensure that local authority plans for services for children cover all relevant services. I shall look into the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Maryhill, which is under consideration.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 156, in page 14, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 33 and insert '; or
(b) any of the enactments mentioned in section 5(1B)(a) to (o) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (enactments in respect of which Secretary of State may issue directions to local authorities as to the exercise of their functions).'.— [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 24

AFTER-CARE

Amendment proposed: No. 157, in page 18, line 17, at end insert—
'(2A) Assistance given under subsection (1) or (2) above may include assistance in kind or in cash.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 158.

Mrs. Fyfe: We had a substantial debate on this part of the Bill in Committee. We argued that resources should be provided to expand provision until the age of 21 years. That was rejected on the ground that the cost would be far too high. When hon. Members and I asked the Minister what the cost would be his answer was somewhat vague, although an alarmingly large figure was mentioned. Since then I understand that Shelter has given the Scottish Office a range of costs. The Association of Directors of Social Work has also advised the Scottish Office on costs. What has happened to the information given to the Scottish Office since the Committee reported? The child care law review estimated that the cost would be £965,000 per annum. That, the Minister will recall, is far less than the sum that was guesstimated in Committee. The figures provided by the child care law review do not account for the cost of not providing care until the age of 21. If we do not cater for that, further crime will be committed, and the health statistics will worsen.
There are numerous ways in which failing to care for the needs of young people who need care until the age of 21 bumps up the crime statistics. That failure costs the nation and creates health problems, for which there are costs to the health service, and so on. Although it is difficult to estimate such costs, they are real. Opposition Members in Committee felt that the whole proposal was rejected far too readily, without getting the reasonable statistics that could have helped

debate. Will the Minister consider it further, given that he has received good advice from helpful and respected organisations in the meantime?

Mr. Galbraith: This was the only subject on which the debate got heated in Committee, partly because Opposition Members consider the extension of provisions to cover an older age to be important. The Minister replied, in what for him was a fairly perfunctory manner, simply by reading his brief without giving consideration to the points that we had made, the main one being that it is all right for those of us with families, to whom we can return, even though we may have left home, but those who have been put out on the street and those in care have no person to whom they can turn.
I understand that there has been some slight movement on the amendment. One of the things for which we asked was that assistance be given in cash. I understand that the amendment now mentions cash. The Minister really must consider once again all the arguments that we made in Committee. My understanding, despite the rather shallow brief that the Minister had, was that he was against it on cost. The costs are now available to him and they are not great. Surely the Government can find their way to providing that small amount of money for those who have been in care and are then thrown out on the streets.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Resources were the major stumbling block to the proposals that were made in Committee. The two amendments result from our lengthy discussions. They improve the provisions in relation to after-care. Amendment No. 157 makes it clear that the assistance that can be given
may include assistance in kind or in cash.
Amendment No. 158 ensures that, where a relevant young person moves to the area of a new authority, the original authority should notify it of the proposed move only if the young person consents. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is made aware of the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) in relation to costings. Those representations will be looked at with great care.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 158, in page 18, line 23, at end insert
'provided that he consents to their doing so'.—p[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 26

REVIEW OF CASE OF CHILD LOOKED AFTER BY LOCAL AUTHORITY

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 19, line 11, leave out 'by regulations'.
No. 10, in page 19, line 17, leave out subsection (3).—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 28

TRANSFERS BETWEEN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM ETC.

Amendment made: No. 159, in page 19, line 27, leave out clause 28.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 37

PRIVACY OF PROCEEDINGS AT AND RIGHT TO ATTEND CHILDREN'S HEARING

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 27, line 11, leave out 'his' and insert 'the child's'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 39

ATTENDANCE OF CHILD AND RELEVANT PERSON AT CHILDREN'S HEARING

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 28, line 12, leave out from 'the' to 'for' in line 13 and insert 'interest of the child' —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 41

PRESUMPTION AND DETERMINATION OF AGE

Amendment made: No. 160, in page 29, line 18, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'(1) Where a children's hearing has been arranged in respect of any person, the hearing—

(a) shall, at the commencement of the proceedings, make inquiry as to his age and shall proceed with the hearing only if he declares that he is a child or they so determine; and
(b) may, at any time before the conclusion of the proceedings, accept a declaration by the child, or make a fresh determination, as to his age.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 42

TRANSFER OF CASE TO ANOTHER CHILDREN'S HEARING

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 29, line 30, leave out first 'that' and insert 'which'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 44

APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF CHILDREN'S HEARING OR SHERIFF

Amendment made: No. 161, in page 31, line 42, at end insert—
'(ia) continuing a child protection order under section 52(4) of this Act;'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 45

CHILDREN REQUIRING COMPULSORY MEASURES OF SUPERVISION

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 32, line 9, leave out 'rights' and insert 'responsibilities'.
No. 15, in page 32, line 45, leave out 'control' and insert 'supervision'.
No. 16, in page 32, line 45, leave out 'in such accommodation'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Gallie: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 32, line 34, at end insert—
' (ia) has misused alcohol or has in a public place consumed alcohol of a strength greater than 1 per cent. by volume.'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 32, line 35, leave out 'alcohol or'.
No. 8, in page 32, line 46 at end insert—

'(3)' In this section, "a public place" means any location other than a private dwelling house.'.

Mr. Gallie: The amendments are intended to draw attention to alcohol abuse among young people. In Scotland—and, I suspect, further afield—it is currently illegal for shopkeepers, off-licences or anyone else to sell alcohol for consumption by those under 18, and for alcohol to be bought for a youngster. Strangely, it is not illegal for the youngster to consume that alcohol.
The current position puts great pressure on shopkeepers who attempt to establish the age of youngsters, but the main problem involves people in the community who see youngsters drinking on beaches or in town centres—it commonly happens on large housing estates—and complain to the police. They know that they must not buy alcohol for young people, and cannot understand why the police are not able to stop those young people drinking in public places. The amendments seek to make it illegal for youngsters to consume alcohol in public places, "alcohol" and "alcoholic beverage" being considered to be any drink that contains more than 1 per cent. alcohol by volume.
The advertising of alcoholic drinks is now being targeted at young people, and there are numerous containers designed to appeal to the young market. That cannot be right.

Mrs. Helen Liddell: I am very interested in this subject, which has been raised repeatedly by my constituents. Although I broadly agree with what the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has said, I feel some anxiety about the means of redress that he seeks through the children's hearing system and supervisory orders. I think that he should exert pressure on members of his own party, including Ministers, to implement byelaws to outlaw on-street drinking. My local authority, backed by the local police, has made strenuous representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland calling for the implementation of those byelaws, and I feel that that would be a more effective method.
We must also bear in mind the tremendous cost to the health and general well-being of under-age drinkers. These proposals merely scratch the surface; other aspects of the sale of drinks and the drinks industry must be taken into account if we are to encourage a more responsible attitude, and ensure that alcohol is not sold to under-age people.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about advertising that is specifically aimed at young people. However, other products are available in my constituency and throughout north Lanarkshire, made by people who should know better. There are instances of children as young as nine consuming fortified drinks in my constituency.
I cannot support the hon. Gentleman's proposal for redress, but I think it important to draw to Ministers' attention the deep concern that is felt about this aspect of young people's lives.

Mr. Bill Walker: I support the amendments. That will not surprise my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), because in the past I have tried to move similar amendments. At that time, my hon. Friend the Minister gave assurances about local byelaws. He, too, will not be surprised to learn that I have been watching the position carefully; I am concerned, because I think that that may not be the way in which to deal with the problem.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that the Government are aware that there is a problem and that byelaws may not be the most effective answer, because of the problems of having to designate certain places. That has been the difficulty in my constituency and others. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us that the Government are considering the matter, and may well find a way of dealing with it.

Mrs. Fyfe: I hope that the Minister will not support amendment No. 6. I find it incredible that a serious proposal could be made that compulsory measures of supervision should apply in such cases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) said, no doubt exists that under-age drinking, especially in public places, can be a major problem. It causes a great deal of upset and even fear to other citizens going about their business, but this amendment is not the way to tackle it. I hope that the Minister is not minded to say that it is.

Mr. Ian Davidson: May I add my voice to those of hon. Members calling on the Minister to make it clear what action he proposes to take on the serious problem of under-age drinking in public? Substantial discussions on another Bill have taken place in the other place about the problems caused by young people—attacks, thefts and the like. Such problems are often fuelled by alcohol that has been consumed in a public place and that has been made available to and bought for young people by adults, who are often alcoholic. In return for a percentage of the carry-out, they will provide those young people with any amount of drink, provided they have the money to buy it. I hope that the Government will deal with that problem and treat it seriously.
If the Government do not accept the solution of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), I hope that they will promise that something will be done about the matter in the near future. Undoubtedly, people in my constituency, and I am sure other constituencies throughout Scotland, want urgent action.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have listened carefully to hon. Members' comments, including those of the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) on byelaws as a possible limited way forward. I listened to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) about drinking by young people.
Two problems exist in relation to the amendments. The first is that they embody a definition of alcoholic drink that does not accord with the definition in any other Scottish legislation. The alcohol strength is set so low that, perversely, some young people might view it as a ban to beat. Secondly, in attempting to cover public places, the proposed definition would venture into such a wide range of situations that it would be difficult to enforce. For those reasons, the amendments are unworkable.
I recognise, however, the great strength of feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr. I should mention that a considerable array of statutory and common law

offences can already be brought to bear, whatever the age of the drinker.
The long-term answer is a positive attitude to health and healthy life styles. The Health Education Board for Scotland works closely with education authorities, health boards and the Scottish Council on Alcohol in getting that message across to young people. We all have a part to play in ensuring that young people are aware of the consequences of alcohol misuse, that they appreciate the legal position and that they are taught the importance of a sensible approach to alcohol use.
I understand my hon. Friend's motives and the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). My concerns about the problems of under-age drinking and its effect both on drinkers and others are no less than theirs. Having said that, I understand the strength of the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr on the issue. Without commitment, because the problems that I have mentioned are real and genuine ones, I am willing to consider the matter further and to reflect on the debate. On that basis, having made his case, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Gallie: I should like to deal with a couple of points, if that is in order. The first is that byelaws are totally ineffective. Local authorities are reluctant, for example, to act against drinking on the beach. They will not impose byelaws because many families enjoy having a picnic and a glass of wine. Byelaws are not acceptable under those circumstances. My amendment would have been much more appropriate.
Having said that, I recognise that penalties would be inappropriate. I wanted to highlight illegal drinking and to give the police some power to stop that practice on our streets. No difficulty would exist with enforcement. The proposal would be a boon to the police rather than a disadvantage.
However, having heard my hon. Friend say that he will consider the matter and take the principle on board, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 162, in page 32, line 46, at end insert—
'(3) In this Part of this Act, 'supervision' in relation to compulsory measures of supervision may include measures taken for the protection, guidance, treatment or control of the child.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Children (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Clause 46

PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO THE PRINCIPAL REPORTER

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 33, line 3, leave out
',having regard to section 45 of this Act,'.
No. 18, in page 33, line 14, leave out
', having regard to section 45,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 47

REFERENCE TO THE PRINICIPAL REPORTER BY COURT

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 34, line 2, after 'divorce or' insert 'judicial'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 48

CHILD ASSESSMENT ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 35, line 9, leave out 'at that place.' and insert
'in any place to which has been taken or in which he is being kept under a child assessment order.'.
No. 21, in page 35, line 10, leave out subsection (6).
No. 22, in page 35, line 13, after 'section;' insert—
'(aa) the persons to whom notice of an application under this section shall be given;'.
No. 23, in page 35, line 15, leave out 'subsection (6)' and insert 'paragraph (aa)'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 49

INITIAL INVESTIGATION BY THE PRINCIPAL REPORTER

Amendments made: No. 24, in page 35, line 30, leave out from 'Reporter' to end and insert
'thinks, or the local authority think, fit.'.
No. 25, in page 35, line 36, leave out
'he may, if he considers it appropriate'.
No. 26, in page 35, line 38, after '(a)' insert 'he shall'.
No. 27, in page 35, line 41, after '(b)' insert
'he may, if he considers it appropriate'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 50

CHILD PROTECTION ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 36, line 18, leave out 'the' and insert 'a'.
No. 29, in page 36, line 31, leave out 'the' and insert 'a'.
No. 30, in page 36, line 46, at end insert 'and'.
No. 36, in page 37, line 12, leave out 'prevent' and insert 'authorise the prevention of'.
No. 31, in page 37, line 15, at end insert
'or class of person specified in the order.'.
No. 32, in page 37, line 16, after 'given' insert
'forthwith by the applicant to the local authority in whose area the child resides (where that authority is not the applicant) and'.
No. 33, in page 37, line 18, leave out 'The Secretary of State' and insert 'Rules'.
No. 34, in page 37, line 22, at end insert 'and'.
No. 35, in page 37, line 24, leave out paragraph (c).
No. 37, in page 37, line 35, leave out subsection (9).—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 51

DIRECTIONS IN RELATION TO CONTACT AND EXERCISE OF PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND PARENTAL RIGHTS

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 37, line 41, leave out 'rights' and insert 'responsibilities'.
No. 39, in page 37, line 42, leave out 'named' and insert 'specified'.
No. 40, in page 38, line 10, after 'order' insert
'under section 50(1) or (2) of this Act'.—[>Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 52

INITIAL HEARING OF CASE OF CHILD SUBJECT TO CHILD PROTECTION ORDER

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 38, line 35, leave out 'granted' and insert 'made'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 53

DURATION, RECALL OR VARIATION OF CHILD PROTECTION ORDER

Amendments made: No. 42, in page 39, line 25, leave out 'be enforceable' and insert 'have effect'.
No. 163, in page 39, line 30, leave out from 'be' to end of line 35 and insert '—

(a) kept in a place of safety under; or
(b) prevented from being removed from any place by, a child protection order where the Principal Reporter, having regard to the welfare of the child, considers that, whether as a result of a change in the circumstances of the case or of further information relating to the case having been received by the Principal Reporter, the conditions for the making of a child protection order in respect of the child are no longer satisfied and notifies the person who implemented the order that he so considers.


(3A) The Principal Reporter shall not give notice under subsection (3) above where—

(a) proceedings before a children's hearing arranged under section 52(2) of this Act in relation to the child who is subject to the child protection order have commenced; or
(b) the hearing of an application made under subsection (5) of this section has begun.

(3B) Where the Principal Reporter has given notice under subsection (3) above, he shall also, in such manner as may be prescribed, notify the sheriff who made the order.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 40, line 6, at end insert '; or
(f) any person or class of persons affected by the provisions of section 51(1)(c) above.'.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 57, page 43, line 39, after 'person', insert
'or any person or class of persons who may be affected by the provisions of section 61(5)(b) below.'.
No. 3, in clause 64, page 50, line 15, after 'person', insert
'or any person or class of persons affected by the provisions of section 61(5)(b) above.'.

Mr. Galbraith: These amendments have become known as my granny amendments. The Minister is aware of the arguments, so there is no need to reiterate them. I am concerned that a third party suspected of being involved in a child abuse case can have that suspicion laid against him with no provision in the legal process—children's panel, reporter or sheriff court—to entitle that person to any right to be heard or to put his case. The charge can be found against him without his ever having the right to question it. That is an infringement of our civil liberties. Although it is right that the child's interests


must be paramount, we cannot allow that to infringe the civil liberty of others. That is the reason behind my granny amendments.

Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My amendment No. 98, which is scheduled to be debated further down the list, in fact deals with almost exactly the same point as the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). It might help the House if we also dealt with my amendment now.

Madam Speaker: That is a commonsense suggestion. Therefore, we shall also discuss amendment No. 98, in clause 59, page 45, line 30, at end insert—
'(3A) Where one of the grounds of referral to which an application relates is a condition referred to in section 45(2)(d) or (e) or (f) or (g)—

(a) the Principal Reporter shall, at the same time as making an application to the sheriff under section 57(6) of this Act, intimate the application to any person named in the grounds of referral, or in respect of whom the Principal Reporter intends to lead evidence before the sheriff, alleging that such person has committed an offence to which the conditions in section 45(2)(d) to (g) relate; and
(b) any person to whom intimation is made in terms of this subsection shall be entitled to be represented at the hearing of the application, and the sheriff may permit representations to be made by the such person, or on his behalf.'.

Mr. Wallace: I echo what has been said by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden. In the Orkney case, there were allegations involving a third party. Even if the matter had gone to proof before the sheriff, that third party would have had no locus to appear. Even if the allegations do not receive publicity, they still very much affect the individual concerned. There should be some ability for that person to be given the opportunity to clear his or her name. Under the proposals in my amendment, if an allegation relates to offences, which by their very nature are sexual offences—relating to conditions referred to in clause 45(2)(d) or (e) or (f) or (g)—and there is a dispute about the grounds of referral and they go to the sheriff for proof, that person should at least have intimation of that dispute and have the right to be represented and, subject to the sheriff's discretion, an opportunity to be heard.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are technical reasons why the amendments are flawed. What is more important is the principle, which the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) have raised in relation to third parties being unfairly accused. Hon. Members may wish to be aware that amendments Nos. 186 and 187 extend an unqualified right of attendance at a children's hearing to any person who has a parental responsibility in respect of the child and to any person who ordinarily has charge of or control over the child. Those amendments will ensure that those persons, having a legal right of contact or actual care, can be heard by the children's hearing and will have subsequent rights.
I shall look at the points that the hon. Members have raised, especially in relation to the amendments, and I shall consider them further.

Mr. Galbraith: Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 would not include provision for grandmothers, unless they had parental rights. Is that correct?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It would be fair to say that if the parents were unable to look after the child, parental responsibility could transfer to the grandparents. I shall look, however, at the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, especially in relation to the amendment.'

Mr. Galbraith: It is clear from what the Minister has said that amendments Nos. 186 and 187 do not cover the provisions proposed in my amendment and therefore do not deal with the granny problem. It is not a question of whether parents have lost their ability to look after the child. My amendment deals with cases in which parents still have rights and responsibilities but when a third person—a granny—is involved. Having heard, however, the Minister say that he is willing to look at the subject again and—perhaps—table amendments in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Wallace: In the case that I cited, the amendments do not apply. We are talking about a third party in circumstances where there would not be any question of the person having parental rights or care and control of the child. The amendments that the Minister mentioned are helpful as far as they go, but they clearly do not cover the kind of circumstances to which the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and I have referred. Nevertheless, the Minister has indicated a willingness to look at the problem so I do not think that it would be helpful to press my amendment and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Madam Speaker: I have to put the Question on amendment No. 1 moved by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) because the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) spoke afterwards. Therefore if the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland does not wish to proceed with his amendment it will have to be negatived.
Amendment negatived.

Clause 53

DURATION, RECALL OR VARIATION OF CHILD PROTECTION ORDER

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 40, line 17, leave out '(5)(a)' and insert '(5)'.
No. 44, in page 40, line 19, leave out 'the Secretary of State' and insert 'rules'.
No. 45, in page 40, line 32, after 'application' insert
'and, if he wishes to make representations, the Principal Reporter'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 54

EMERGENCY PROTECTION OF CHILDREN WHERE CHILD PROTECTION ORDER NOT AVAILABLE

Amendment made: No. 46, in page 41, line 6, leave out 'grant' and insert 'making'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Amendment proposed: No. 164, in page 41, line 8, leave out 'any such order' and insert


'it is probable that any such order, if made,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mrs. Fyfe: I would like to ask a question about amendment No. 166. Is training for justices of the peace envisaged and is it intended that an assessor will sit with a JP? The amendment was to be tabled, according to the Government in Committee, because there was supposed to be such a dearth of sheriffs. Yet we have heard since from people who are familiar with the role of sheriffs that there is clearly no need to bring in JPs at all and that sheriffs ought to be available in sufficient numbers to obviate the need for calling on JPs. When I was a councillor, I was also a justice of the peace. I knew nothing at all about such matters. I spent my time as a JP signing people's forms from pawnbrokers because they had lost their pawnbrokers' slips or signing applications for passports. That hardly seemed adequate training to take a decision on an issue like this.

Mr. Wallace: I need to crave your indulgence, Madam Speaker, to some extent. I tabled an amendment which, because we are making such fast progress, I was unable to refer to. It related to the use of justices of the peace in areas where they do not sit in district courts. The amendment that I had tabled attempted to deal with that point and I hope that the Minister will explain how he will attempt to deal with it. In an earlier group of amendments, there was reference to justices of the peace not having training to deal with the very sensitive matters which such orders raise.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Training will be provided for justices of the peace as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) requested. In relation to making justices of the peace available rather than sheriffs where sheriffs are not available, the amendment arose from representations from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). In the remoter islands of Scotland, there could be circumstances in which a sheriff might not be readily available in an emergency. The proposal relates not to circumstances in Glasgow or to centres of population, but to the remoter areas of Scotland. It is a safeguard which we think sensible to put in place.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 165, in page 41, line 1, leave from 'circumstances' to end of line 11 and insert
'for an application for such an order to be made to or for the sheriff to consider such an application'.
No. 166, in page 41, line 12, at end insert—
'(1A) Where on the application of a local authority a justice of the peace is satisfied—

(a) both that the conditions laid down for the making of a child protection order in section 50(2) of this Act are satisfied and that it is probable that any such order, if made, would contain an authorisation in terms of paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (4) of that section; but
(b) that it is not practicable in the circumstances for an application for such an order to be made to the sheriff or for the sheriff to consider such an application,

he may grant an authorisation under this section.'.
No. 47, in page 41, line 21, leave out
'if not implemented by the applicant,'.

No. 48, in page 41, line 22, leave out 'granted' and insert—
'made, if within that time—

(i) arrangements have not been made to prevent the child's removal from any place specified in the authorisation; or
(ii) he has not been, or is not being, taken to a place of safety'.

No. 49, in page 41, line 23, leave out from 'where' to 'when' in line 25 and insert—
'such arrangements have been made or he has been so taken,'.
No. 167, in page 41, line 33, leave out from 'him' to 'and' in line 34 and insert
'to make an application for such an order to the sheriff or for the sheriff to consider such an application;'.
No. 50, in page 41, line 41, leave out from 'time' to end and insert
'when the child is so removed.'.
No. 51, in page 42, line 1, after 'be' insert '—
(a)' 
No. 52, in page 42, line 1, after 'safety' insert '; or
(b) prevented from being removed from any place,'.
No. 168, in page 42, line 3, after 'Or insert 'or (1A)'.
No. 53, in page 42, line 6, leave out subsection (8).— [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 55

REGULATIONS IN RESPECT OF EMERGENCY CHILD PROTECTION MEASURES

Amendment made: No. 54, in page 42, line 8, leave out subsection (1).—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 56

BUSINESS MEETING PREPARATORY TO CHILDREN'S HEARING

Amendments made: No. 55, in page 42, line 24, leave out from 'hearing' to the'.
No. 56, in page 42, line 25, leave out first 'the'.
No. 57, in page 42, line 26, leave out 'who will form' and insert 'from which'.
No. 58, in page 42, line 26, after 'hearing' insert 'is to be'.
No. 59, in page 42, line 30, leave out from 'whom' to 'and' in line 31 and insert
'the proceedings are to be commenced'.
No. 60, in page 42, line 39, after 'meeting' insert
', subject to subsection (4) below'.
No. 61, in page 42, line 43, leave out
'subject to subsection (4) below'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 57

REFERRAL TO, AND PROCEEDINGS AT, CHILDREN'S HEARINGS

Amendments made: No. 62, in page 43, line 13, after 'that' insert —

(a) compulsory measures of supervision are necessary, and
(b)' 

No. 169, in page 43, line 18, leave out or' and insert 'and the order is'.
No. 170, in page 43, line 20, leave out from 'place' to 'implemented' in line 21 and insert
'on the eighth working day after that order was'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 58

WARRANT TO KEEP CHILD WHERE CHILDREN'S HEARING UNABLE TO DISPOSE OF CASE

Amendments made: No. 63, in page 44, line 16, leave out from 'hearing' to 'unable' in line 21 and insert '—

(a) arranged to consider a child's case under—

(i) section 57(1); or
(ii) section 64(7),

of this Act; and
(b)'.

No. 64, in page 45, line 8, at end insert—
'(5A) Where a children's hearing grant a warrant under subsection (1) above or continues such a warrant under subsection (4) above, they may order that the place of safety at which the child is to be kept shall not be disclosed to any person or class of persons specified in the order.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 59

APPLICATION TO SHERIFF TO ESTABLISH GROUNDS OF REFERRAL

Amendments made: No. 171, in page 45, line 31, after the word 'shall' insert
', subject to subsection (4A) below,'.
No. 65, in page 45, line 32, leave out 'of their legal representation' and insert
'of each of them to be legally represented'.
No. 172, in page 45, line 35, at end insert—
'(4A) An application may be heard, in whole or in part, in the absence of the child where the sheriff is satisfied—

(a) in an application in which the ground of referral to be established is a condition mentioned in section 45(2)(d), (e), (f) or (g) of this Act, that the attendance of the child is not necessary for the just hearing of that application; and
(b) in any application, that it would be detrimental to the interests of the child for him to be present at the hearing of the application.'.

No. 173, in page 45, line 36, after 'application' insert
'at which his attendance has not been dispensed with under subsection (4A) above'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 60

CONTINUATION OR DISPOSAL OF REFERRAL BY CHILDREN'S HEARING

Amendments made: No. 66, in page 47, line 4, leave out 'child and his history' and insert 'case'.
No. 67, in page 47, line 40, at end insert—
'(8A) Where a child is to be kept at a place of safety under a warrant granted under this section, the children's hearing may order that such place shall not be disclosed to any person or class of persons specified in the order.'.
No. 68, in page 47, line 41, leave out from 'decide' to 'they' in line 4 and insert
'not to make a supervision requirement under section 61 of this Act'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 61

DISPOSAL OF REFERRAL BY CHILDREN'S HEARING: SUPERVISION REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING RESIDENCE IN SECURE ACCOMMODATION

Amendments made: No. 69, in page 48, line 21, leave out from first 'the' to 'any' and insert
'contact with the child of'.
No. 70, in page 48, line 21, leave out 'named' and insert 'specified'.
No. 71, in page 48, line 44, leave out 'a history of absconding' and insert 'previously absconded'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 62

DUTIES OF LOCAL AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO SUPERVISION REQUIREMENTS

Amendments made: No. 72, in page 49, line 3, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
'(1) The relevant local authority shall give effect to any supervision requirement made under section 61 of this Act.'.
No. 73, in page 49, line 13, leave out 'in relevant accommodation' and insert—

'(a) in relevant accommodation; or
(b) in any other accommodation not provided by a local authority,'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 64

DURATION AND REVIEW OF SUPERVISION REQUIREMENT

Amendments made: No. 75, in page 50, line 34, after '61(7)' insert 'or section 63(2)'.
No. 174, in page 50, line 46, leave out 'a new condition'.
No. 175, in page 50, line 46, after 'requirement' insert
'any requirement which could have been imposed by them under section 61(3) of this Act'.
No. 76, in page 50, line 48, at end insert—
'(8A) Where a children's hearing vary or impose a requirement or condition under subsection (8) above which requires the child to reside in any specified place or places, they may order that such place or places shall not be disclosed to any person or class of persons specified in the requirement.'.
No. 77, in page 51, line 3, leave out
'(whether with or without variation)'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 51, line 7, at end insert—

'(9A) Where a children's hearing has taken place by virtue of subsection (4)(c) above and a decision has been reached in terms of subsection (7) above, the relevant local authority—

(a) may, within a period of 3 weeks beginning with the date of the decision of the said children's hearing appeal to the sheriff against that decision; and
(b) where such an appeal is made, shall be heard by the sheriff as to the reasons for the appeal.

(9B) Where the relevant local authority appeals under subsection (1) above, subsections (2), (3), (4), and (5) of section 44 of this Act, shall apply to that appeal as they apply to an appeal under that section.'.

The amendment relates to circumstances, which we rehearsed in Committee, when there is an impasse between the children's hearing and the local authority with regard to future arrangements for the child, and specifically when the local authority believes that adoption should be considered and the children's hearing has come to a somewhat different view. At present, children's hearings are not allowed openly to discuss adoption plans, as the purpose of the hearings is more to


deal with short-term issues in the child's life and are not part of the adoption process. That makes it difficult at hearings for permanent plans for the children to be discussed.
When the matter was debated in Committee, the Minister said that he thought that there was some merit in what was being put forward. He said that the amendment that I moved
would allow the local authority, in any case where it did not receive the agreement of the children's hearing to the proposal submitted … to appeal direct to the sheriff. The reason for that seems to have some merit, and we are willing to give it consideration if the hon. Member can provide details of the circumstances in which he thinks it would be appropriate."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 7 March 1995; c. 547.]
Regrettably, the detail that I sought to pass on to the Minister came into my hands only at the beginning of last week, and I have not had a proper opportunity to look at it in detail. However, it refers to circumstances relating to, for example, a child of any age who had been subject to a supervision requirement under the 1968 Act, and there had been access by the parents but that had been reduced because the parents had not been keeping up access on a regular basis. At that point, the local authority thought that it might be appropriate to plan for adoption. At a subsequent hearing, the parents reassured the hearing that their life style had changed and access was therefore increased. At that stage there is a possible impasse between the local authority and the children's hearing.
I appreciate that what is suggested is a novel approach. It brings the local authority into a direct relationship with the children's hearing, which is unusual. I can understand that there might be some resistance to that, but, in the interests of the child, there must be some way in which the issues can be looked at by an independent body, in this case by the sheriff.
I hope that the Minister will continue to sympathise with that approach. If he shows that he still has an open mind on the issue, I will certainly furnish him with many more examples of circumstances which could give rise to such a dispute between the local authority and the hearing and when appeal to the sheriff using current procedures, but just adding a bit on to them to deal with such cases, might be an appropriate way of trying to take matters forward at all times in the best interests of the child.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am content to consider the matter further and, on that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment to a vote.

Mr. Wallace: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 67

DURATION AND REVIEW OF SUPERVISION REQUIREMENT

Amendment made: No. 78, in page 53, line 43, after 'child' insert 'ordinarily'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton]

Clause 68

EFFECT OF, AND ORDERS ETC. ANCILLARY TO, EXCLUSION ORDER

Dr. Godman: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 54, line 8, after 'permission', insert

'of the other occupiers and'.
The purpose of the amendment is to modify clause 68 (1), but if the Minister gives me one of his honest assurances that it is unnecessary, I shall happily withdraw it. Clause 68(1) states:
An exclusion order shall, in respect of the home to which it relates, have the effect of suspending the named person's rights of occupancy (if any) and shall prevent him from entering the home, except with the express permission of the local authority which applied for the order.
My amendment would modify that to read,
with the express permission of other occupiers and the local authority".
I supported clause 67, and I have long campaigned for the exclusion of the alleged abuser rather than the removal of the child or children from the home. But in this case express permission can be given to a named person to enter a home from which he or she has been excluded. Presumably, that requires the permission of the other parent, or the child concerned if he is old enough to have an opinion.
It seems perfectly reasonable to suggest that such a child should be able to express an opinion about the local authority's decision to prevent the excluded person from returning to the family home. The interests of the child should be made an explicit requirement. I must first ask the Minister whether that is feasible.
The amendment would protect the child's interests—and those of the other parent—by putting them on a level with the local authority. I believe that the amendment is necessary, although the Minister may seek to convince me that it is not, to defend the interests of the child. I believe that the child and the other parent should be placed alongside the local authority in this matter.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should say at the outset that I have some sympathy with the amendment. The concept of excluding someone from the family home does carry with it the expectation that those remaining will be content with the situation. If those involved conclude that, in the light of changing circumstances, this is not possible—or if the person requires access to remove personal belongings—it would seem reasonable to allow the people remaining in the house to have a say.
There is another side to the coin. It may be that the mother and child who remain in the house are put under serious pressure by the excluded abusing husband, and that they might reach a point where they could no longer resist. It is important to remember that, if the woman had wished, she could have sought to exclude the person through the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) Scotland Act 1981. The fact that she chose not to do so, and that an authority became involved, may reflect on the woman's inability or unwillingness to take matters forward herself.
On balance—this was very much a balanced decision—we reached the view that the local authority should probably be left very much in the driving seat. I have little doubt that it would consult where appropriate, but the final decision should be for the authority. The mother, child or other occupants of the family home should not have to face decisions of that type at a time when they might be under considerable stress, and may have difficulty in forming


balanced views. They may also have been subject to violence. I hope that, on the basis of that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Dr. Godman: The child, wife or partner must be consulted comprehensively by the local authority by way of an assessment. I accept the Minister's assurance, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 69

POWERS OF ARREST ETC. IN RELATION TO EXCLUSION ORDER

Amendment proposed: No. 176, in page 55, line 11, after 'may' insert 'ex proprio motu or'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Madam Speaker: With this it will convenient to take Government amendment No. 177.

Mrs. Fyfe: I wonder whether the Minister could simply tell us what ex proprio motu means. Could he put that in plain English in the Bill? I recognise that it is Latin. I even did a few years of Latin at secondary school, but the Minister undertook in Committee to try to frame a Bill in language that could be understood not only by Members of Parliament but by the general public trying to find their way through child legislation. I am sure that it can be translated into an easily understood English phrase. I hope that the Minister will let us know tonight what it means and will undertake to do that.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: When I took my law degree exams, I could certainly have given the hon. Lady the exact answer, but she will have to put up with a slightly longer one tonight. The amendment represents a useful addition to clause 69, which deals with powers of arrest in relation to exclusion orders. Amendment No. 176 simply ensures that the sheriff may, at his own hand, attach a power of arrest to an interdict and need not wait for an application by the local authority. I understand that the actual wording means "at his own hand". It is a Latin tag applicable in court proceedings. A sheriff will understand exactly what it means. I am glad that, owing to the excellence of the memories of my officials, who have not forgotten what they learnt in their law exams, I can inform the hon. Lady accordingly.

Mrs. Fyfe: I am sorry—

Madam Speaker: Order. Is this an intervention? Is the Minister allowing an intervention? If not, the hon. Lady must seek the leave of the House.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am content to allow the hon. Lady to intervene.

Mrs. Fyfe: I am not sure whether this is an intervention or not.

Madam Speaker: Order. It has to be, otherwise it is not in order.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I am sure that the sheriff will understand. My point is that the general public will not. Will the Minister simply amend the Bill to make it clear?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with that sentiment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 177, in page 55, line 44, leave out from 'of' to 'liberate' in line 46, and insert
'that person further breaching the interdict to which the power of arrest was attached under subsection (1) above,'.
No. 79, in page 56, line 1, leave out from 'person' to end of line 5 and insert—
'(6A) Such a refusal to liberate an arrested person as is mentioned in subsection (6)(b) above, and the detention of that person until his appearance in court by virtue of either subsection (9) below or any provision of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, shall not subject that constable to any claim whatsoever.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 71

PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO EXCLUSION ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 58, line 7, after 'or' insert 'of
No. 81, in page 58, line 10, at end insert—
'(2A) The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the powers, duties and functions of local authorities in relation to exclusion orders.'.
No. 82, in page 58, line 23, leave out from 'situated' to end of line 28.
No. 178, in page 58, line 33, after '(1)' insert 'or ClAr.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 74

HARBOURING

Amendments made: No. 179, in page 60, line 8, leave out second 'and'.
No. 180, in page 60, line 9, after '1989' insert
'and to Article 70(5) and (6) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995'.
No. 181, in page 60, line 10, after 'Wales' insert 'and for Northern Ireland'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 76

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES ORDER: GENERAL

Amendments made: No. 182, in page 61, line 6, leave out from '1976' to or' in line 7 and insert
', under section 18 or 49 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 or under Article 17, 18 or 57 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (corresponding provision for Scotland and Northern Ireland).'.
No. 83, in page 61, line 11, leave out from 'child' to end of line 13.
No. 84, in page 61, line 16, leave out 'or'.
No. 85, in page 61, line 18, at end insert
'or of any other person claiming an interest'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 77

FURTHER PROVISION AS RESPECTS PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 86, in page 61, line 48, at end insert
'; and service of such notice shall be effected either by the authority leaving it in the person's hands or by their sending it to him, at his and the child's most recent known address, by recorded delivery service'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 81

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Amendments made: No. 183, in page 64, line 10, at end insert—
'(aa) a community home within the meaning of section 53 of the Children Act 1989;'.
No. 184, in page 64, line 27, leave out 'and'.
No. 185, in page 64, line 30, at end insert
'and
(c) in relation to a place in Northern Ireland, means a home provided under Part VIII of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, or a voluntary home, or a registered children's home (which have respectively the meanings given by that Order);'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 186, in page 65, line 14, leave out from 'where' to 'rights' in line 15.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 187.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should draw to the attention of the House errors in the printing of amendments Nos. 186 and 187. Amendment No. 186 should read:
line 15, leave out from 'the' to 'any'.
Amendment No. 187 should read:
line 19, leave out from 'act' to 'any' and insert 'and (c)'.
The amendments extend the right of participation in a hearing and subsequent proceedings to broadly the same category of persons who at present have such rights under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. This meets some concerns expressed in Committee. My statement corrects the incorrect amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 187, in page 65, line 17, leave out from 'or' to 'above' in line 19 and insert 'and (c)'.
No. 87, in line 21, leave out first 'the'.
No. 188, in page 65, line 21, at end insert—
'(2A) Where, in the course of any proceedings under Chapter 2 or 3 of this Part, a child ceases to be a child within the meaning of subsection (2) above the provisions of those Chapters of this Part and of any statutory instrument made under those provisions, shall continue to apply to him as if he had not so ceased to be a child.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 83

WELFARE OF CHILD PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 66, line 37, leave out 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Government amendment No. 189.
Amendment No. 109, in page 66, line 41, at end insert 'and;
(c) shall have regard so far as practicable to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.'.

Mr. Wallace: Amendment No. 109 would require a court or an adoption agency to have regard, as far as practicable, to a child's religious persuasion, racial origin, cultural or linguistic background. Government

amendment No. 189 not only includes that but refers to the child's views, and I am sure it is a much superior amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 189, in page 66, line 38, leave out from 'practicable' to end of line 41 and insert—

'—(i) to his views (if he wishes to express them) taking account of his age and maturity; and
(ii) to his religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 87

PANEL FOR CURATORS ad litem, REPORTING OFFICERS AND SAFEGUARDERS

Amendment made: No. 134, in page 68, line 16, leave out subsection (3).—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 88

INTERPRETATION AND PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL

Amendment made: No. 135, in page 68, line 30, at end insert—
'(3) Rules or regulations made under this Act—

(a) may make different provision for different cases or classes of case; and
(b) may exclude certain cases or classes of case.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 90

EXTENT, SHORT TITLE, MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS, REPEALS AND COMMENCEMENT

Amendments made: No. 136, in page 69, line 5, at end insert—
'(lA) An order under subsection (1)(b) above may contain such transitional provisions and savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions brought into force.'.
No. 190, in page 69, line 15, at end insert—
'( ) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (4) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
No. 191, in page 69, line 16, leave out '28' and insert [Effect of orders etc. made in different parts of the United Kingdom]'.
No. 192, in page 69, line 17, after second 'and' insert 'those sections and this section (except section 61(4)) also extend'.
No. 193, in page 69, line 23, leave out 'and 45' and insert ',45 and 46B'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 2

AMENDMENTS OF THE ADOPTION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1978

Amendments made: No. 194, in page 71, line 37, at end insert '—(a)'.
No. 195, in page 71, line 38, at end insert '; and
(b) for paragraph (c) substitute—

"(bb) counselling and assistance (but, without prejudice to sections 51 to 51B, not assistance in cash) to children who have been adopted and to persons who have adopted a child; and
(c) counselling for other persons if they have problems relating to adoption.".'.



No. 88, in page 72, line 8, leave out 'approved adoption society's' and insert 'adoption agency's'.
No. 197, in page 77, line 8, after 'payments)' insert—
'—(a) in subsection (1), after the word "section" insert "and of section 51A(3)";
(b)'.
No. 198, in page 77, line 12, at end insert—
'; (c) in subsection (5)—

(i) at the beginning insert "Subject to section 51B,"; and
(ii) at the end add "(including any such payment made by virtue of section 51B)"; and

(d) subsections (6)(a) and (7) to (11) shall cease to have effect.' 
No. 199, in page 77, line 15, at end insert—
'. In section 60(3) (affirmative procedure for certain orders), the words "or 51(9)" shall cease to have effect'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 3

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 137, in page 80, line 4, leave out 'the'.
No. 138, in page 80, line 9, leave out 'the'.
No. 139, in page 80, line 13, leave out 'the'
No. 140, in page 80, line 16, leave out second 'the'.
No. 141, in page 81, line 13, after 'person' insert
'(whether or not he has himself attained the age of sixteen years)'.
No. 142, in page 81, line 28, after 'responsibilities' insert—
'(9B) A person may be a qualified applicant for the purposes of this section whether or not he has attained the age of sixteen years.'.
No. 143, in page 81, line 35, at end insert—
'12A. Where, at any time after the coming into force of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 but before the coming into force of—

(a) sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 12 of this Schedule, a person's mother or father, who had not at that time attained the age of sixteen years, purported to apply under section 20(3)(a) of that Act to re-register the person's birth, the mother, or as the case may be the father, shall be presumed to have had legal capacity to make the application; or
(b) sub-paragraph (3)(c) of that paragraph, a person who had not at that time attained the age of sixteen years purported to make an application under any provision of section 43 of that Act ("making an application" including for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, without prejudice to the generality of that expression, signing and delivering a certificate in accordance with sub-section (3) of that section) the person shall be presumed to have had legal capacity to make the application.'.

No. 200, in page 82, line 35, at beginning insert 'Without prejudice to section 6B(1) of this Act,'.
No. 89, in page 83, line 35, leave out 'the' in both places where it occurs.
No. 201, in page 85, line 17, at end insert—
'(1A) Section 14 shall cease to have effect.'.
No. 202, in page 85, line 33, at end insert—

'(3A) In section 168 (power of court to refer child to reporter where accused convicted of certain offences: solemn proceedings)—

(a) in paragraph (a), the word "female" shall cease to have effect;

(b) in paragraph (ii), after the word "above" insert "or the person in respect of whom the offence so mentioned was committed"; and
(c) for the words "Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Chapter 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".

(3B) In section 171(2) (regard to be had to certain provisions in presumption of age of child: solemn proceedings)—

(a) for the words "application of the provisions of section 30(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "the definition of a child for the purposes of Chapters 2 and 3 of Part H of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and
(b) for the words "under Part V of that Act" substitute "by virtue of regulations made under that Act for the purpose of giving effect to orders made in different parts of the United Kingdom".

(3C) In section 177 (directions by court in solemn proceedings as to conveyance of person to residential establishment), the words "provided by a local authority under Part IV of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" shall cease to have effect".

No. 203, in page 85, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 36.
No. 204, in page 85, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 39.
No. 205, in page 85, line 44, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 45 and insert—

'(i) in paragraph (a), for the word "care" substitute "supervision"; and
(ii) in paragraph (b),'.

No. 208, in page 85, line 46, for "section 52(2)" substitute "section 57".
No. 206, in page 86, line 14, at end insert—

'(6A) Section 323 shall cease to have effect.
(6B) In section 364 (power of court to refer child to reporter where accused convicted of certain offences: summary proceedings)—

(a) in paragraph (a) the word "female" shall cease to have effect;
(b) in paragraph (ii), after the word "above" insert "or the person in respect of whom the offence so mentioned was committed"; and
(c) for the words "Part III. of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Chapter 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".

(6C) In section 368(2) (regard to be had to certain provisions in presumption of age of child: summary proceedings)—

(a) for the words "application of the provisions of section 30(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "the definition of a child for the purposes of Chapters 2 and 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and
(b) for the words "under Part V of that Act" substitute "by virtue of regulations made under that Act for the purpose of giving effect to orders made in different parts of the United Kingdom".

(6D) In section 378 (directions by court in summary proceedings as to conveyance of person to residential establishment), the words "provided by a local authority under Part IV of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" shall cease to have effect.
(6E) In section 413 (detention of children found guilty in summary proceedings)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "residential care" substitute "residential accommodation provided under Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";
(b) in subsection (3)—

(i) the definitions of "care" and of "the 1968 Act" shall cease to have effect; and
(ii) after the definition of "the appropriate local authority" insert—

"secure accommodation" has the meaning assigned to it in Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";


(c) after subsection (3) insert the following subsection—

"(3A) Where a child in respect of whom an order is made under this section is detained by the appropriate local authority, that authority shall have the same powers and duties in respect of the child as they would have if he were subject to a supervision requirement.";

(d) in subsection (4), the words "within the meaning of the 1968 Act" shall cease to have effect;
(e) in subsection (5), the words "(within the meaning of the 1968 Act)" shall cease to have effect;
(f) in subsection (6), for the word "care" substitute "accommodation";
(g) in subsection (6A), the words "within the meaning of the 1968 Act" shall cease to have effect;
(h) in subsection (6B)—

(i) for the words "care of substitute "accommodation provided by"; and
(ii) for the words "their care" substitute "that accommodation or any other such accommodation provided by that authority"; and

(i) in subsection (6C)—

(i) for the word "care" where it first occurs substitute "accommodation provided by the appropriate local authority";
(ii) in paragraph (a), for the word "care" substitute "accommodation";
(iii) in paragraph (b), for the words "residential care" where they first occur substitute "detention in residential accommodation" and for those words where they secondly occur substitute "such detention".


(6F) In section 462 (interpretation) in the definition of—

(a) "child", for the words "by section 30 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "for the purposes of Chapters 2 and 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";
(b) "children's hearing", for the words "by section 34(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "in Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";
(c) "place of safety", for the words "section 94(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";
(d) "residential establishment", for the words from "has" to the end substitute "means an establishment within the meaning of that expression for the purposes of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or, as the case may be, of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and
(e) "supervision requirement", for the words "by section 44(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "in Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".'.


No. 90, in page 86, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 41 and insert—
'(b) for subsection (2) substitute—
(2) In any case where subsection (1) applies, and the child

(a) was being looked after by a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 before he began to have his home with the applicant, and
(b) continues to be looked after by such a council,

the council by whom the child is being looked after shall not remove him from the applicant's care and possession except—

(i) with the applicant's consent;
(ii) with the leave of the court; or
(iii) in accordance with an order made, or authority or warrant granted, under Chapter 2 or 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.".

(c) at the end add—
(5) In this section "looked after" and "residence order" have the meanings given respectively by section 17(7) and section 11(2)(c) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995; and "residence order" shall have the same meaning in sections 52 and 53 of this Act.".'.

No. 91, in page 87, line 19, leave out '83,' and insert '84, 99,'.
No. 209, in page 87, line 19, leave out 'and 102' and insert', 102 and' 103'.
No. 210, in page 87, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 27.
No. 144, in page 87, line 39, leave out 'the'.
No. 92, in page 87, line 42, leave out second 'the'.
No. 146, in page 88, line 37, leave out 'and'.
No. 147, in page 88, line 43, at end insert 'and
(c) subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.'.
No. 93, in page 89, line 10, at end insert—

'Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984 (c.56)

—(1) The Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 2 (exceptions to definition of "foster child")—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "in the care of a local authority or a voluntary organisation" substitute "being looked after by a local authority";
(b) in subsection (3), the words "within the meaning of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" shall cease to have effect;
(c) in subsection (5), the words "; or (b) while he is a protected child within the meaning of section 32 of the said Act of 1978" shall cease to have effect; and
(d) after subsection (5) add—

"(6) The reference in subsection (1) above to a child being looked after by a local authority shall be construed as if it were a reference to which section 17(7) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 applies.".


(3) In section 3(4) (saving for Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968), for the words "the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".
(4) In section 7(1) (persons disqualified from keeping foster children)—

(a) in paragraph (b), after the word "1968" insert "or under section 61 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and
(b) after paragraph (d) insert—

"(dd) his parental rights and parental responsibilities (within the meaning of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995) have been transferred, by an order under section 76(1) of that Act, to a local authority;".


(5) In section 12 (removal of foster children on complaint of local authority), for subsection (5) substitute—

"(5) For the purposes of section 21 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (and for the reason mentioned in subsection (1)(c) of that section) a child removed under this section shall be regarded as requiring accommodation.".

(6) In section 21(1) (interpretation)—

(a) in the definition of "residential establishment", after the word "1968" insert "or of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and
(b) for the definition of "supervision requirement", substitute—


"supervision requirement" has the meaning given by section 61(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;".'.
No. 148, in page 90, line 37, after '1995);";' insert—
(aa) in the definition of "guardian", paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect;'.
No. 149, in page 90, line 43, at beginning insert—
'—(1) The Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2)'
No. 150, in page 90, line 43, leave out
'of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986'.
No. 151, in page 90, line 47, at end insert—


'(3) In section 41 (interpretation), in the definition of "person", the existing words from "does" to the end shall be paragraph (a) and after that paragraph there shall be added—
; and
(b) in connection with civil legal aid or with providing advice and assistance in connection with any civil matter (but without prejudice to any question of legal capacity arising in connection with criminal legal aid or with providing advice and assistance in connection with any criminal matter) includes a person under the age of sixteen years if he has legal capacity, by virtue of section 2(4A) of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991, to instruct a solicitor.".'.
No. 211, in page 92, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
No. 152, in page 93, line 42, leave out from first 'solicitor' to end of line 43 and insert
',in connection with any civil matter, where that person has a general understanding of what it means to do so; and without prejudice to the generality of this subsection a person twelve years of age or more shall be presumed to be of sufficient age and maturity to have such understanding.

(4B) A person who by virtue of subsection (4A) above has legal capacity to instruct a solicitor shall also have legal capacity to sue, or to defend, in any civil proceedings.
(4C) Subsections (4A) and (4B) above are without prejudice to any question of legal capacity arising in connection with any criminal matter.".'.

No. 212, in page 94, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert—
'"Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Children (Scotland) Act 1995".'.
No. 213, in page 94, line 15, leave out from 'interpretation)' to end of line 28 and insert '—

(a) in the definition of "contact order"—

(i) after the word "meaning" insert "—

(a) except in relation to an order made Scotland,"; and

(ii) at the end, add "; and

(b) in relation to an order there made, given by section 11(2)(d) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995."; and


(b) in the definition of "parental responsibility"—

(i) after the word "responsibility"" insert "—

(a) except in relation to Scotland,"; and

(ii) at the end add "; and

(b) in relation to Scotland, shall be construed as a reference to "parental responsibilities" within the meaning given by section 1(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;".'.

No. 214, in page 94, line 40, at end insert—

'Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (SI 19951755 (N.L2))

46B. In Article 70(7) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (enactments not to apply where child given refuge), in sub-paragraph (c), for the words "section 71 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "section 74 of theChildren (Scotland) Act 1995".'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 4

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 94, in page 96, line 40, at end insert—


'1972 c.24.
Social Work (Scotland) Act 1972.
The whole Act.'. 


No. 215, in page 96, line 46, column 3, at beginning insert—




'Section 14. In section 168(a), the word "female". In section 177, the words "provided by a local authority under Part IV of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968".



Section 323. In section 364(a), the word "female". In section 378, the words "provided by a local authority under Part IV of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968".



In section 413, in subsection (3), the definitions of "care" and of "the 1968 Act"; in subsection (4), the words "within the meaning of the 1968 Act"; in subsection (5), the words "(within the meaning of the 1968 Act)"; and in subsection (6A),the words "within the meaning of the 1968 Act".'.


No. 95, in page 96, line 52, column 3, for 'Section 103(3).' substitute 'Section 103.'.
No. 216, in page 96, line 52, column 3, at end insert 'Section 105.'.
No. 217, in page 97, line 29, column 3, leave out from 'section' to end of line 33 and insert
'51, subsections (6)(a) and (7) to (11).'.
No. 218, in page 97, line 33, column 3, at end insert 'In section 60(3), the words "or 51(9)".'.
No. 96, in page 98, line 2, column 3, leave out 'In section 2(5),' and insert—



'In section 2, in subsection (3), the words "within the meaning of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968"; and in subsection (5),'.


—(Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mrs. Fyfe: I shall be brief. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] My hon. Friends are pleased to hear that.
In all the confusion of dealing with 43 pages of amendments and new clauses at short notice, it seems that some issues which arose in Committee have not yet been dealt with. In Committee the Government agreed in principle but have not yet activated a number of points that I hope the Minister will note. One in particular on clause 19 was promised on 28 February, and it related to children in


need of services in regard to their religious persuasion. Another issue, which arose in Committee on clause 35, was whether the court or children's hearing should have to specify why a safeguarder should not be appointed.
On clause 44, the question arose of young people or parents appealing on disposal of the children's hearing. In clause 50, the question arose of the police obtaining a wider right of entry with regard to compulsory protection orders. A number of aspects arise under children's rights, and we still have no clarification on the safeguarder's role. Crucially, clause 44(5)(c)(iii) has still not been changed, which means that the sheriff can still make his own disposal when a young person is picked to appeal at a children's hearing.
Little change has been made to exclusion orders. I realise that the Minister undertook tonight to deal with emergency exclusion orders in another place, but he said little about the whole issue of exclusion orders as such. We still need to know his intentions on how an exclusion order would fit in with a compulsory protection order, particularly if an exclusion order were refused, and on powers of arrest.
I could raise a number of other items, but I do not wish to detain the House. Many issues were not brought forward on Report and I trust that the Minister will raise them in another place. They are clearly important issues that were raised in Committee and it is disappointing that tonight's debate was rushed through. Had a little more time been taken, all those matters could have been dealt with, and my hon. Friends who wanted to be off with their families could have had that opportunity.
Despite those criticisms, may I say once again that hon. Friends and I welcome the Bill? As the Minister knows, we sought it for a long time before it came to Floor of the House. We are keen for it to go through and, despite the faults that we have noted, we support it and do not intend to vote against its Third Reading.

Mr. Wallace: I know that one is not meant to refer to what is missing from a Bill on Third Reading, but the Minister will have noted the number of points that are missing, which—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite right.

Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall therefore not detain the House by referring to those omissions. I am sure that the Minister will want to refer to them in another place.
May I add to what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe)? The Bill commands support on both sides of the House. It is an important piece of legislation to improve the care, protection and welfare of children in Scotland. We hope that it will be improved still further in another place.
Before concluding, it would be appropriate to pay credit to the consortium on the Children (Scotland) Bill and agencies such as British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, the reporters' association and the Association of Directors of Social Work—

Dr. Godman: And others.

Mr. Wallace: Indeed. They have all made an important contribution and, through their lobbying and

representations, the Bill leaves this place better than when it was introduced. We only hope that it can be improved still further, as it has an important and worthwhile contribution to make to all children in Scotland.

Mrs. Ewing: Those of us who have been involved in this subject are aware that it was a long and hard-fought campaign to introduce legislation on the protection and welfare of children in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, a great deal of credit must go to organisations, both voluntary and statutory, which worked hard in this sphere and have been of great assistance to the House of Commons all-party group for children in Scotland. I thank them very much for their briefings and assistance and even for producing amendments, which were occasionally accepted by the Government as being technically correct. The Government could therefore not reject them.
The Bill is not yet perfect and we must further explore many spheres of the basic principles that have been laid down in the legislative process. One of the sad aspects of the Bill's proceedings is the fact that, when we have divided, either in Committee or in the House this evening, there has tended to be an Opposition versus Government line. I hoped that we would see much more cross-party co-operation. The children of Scotland are not attached to any particular political party. They are our future generations and they will take their own political decisions. The lack of cross-party co-operation has been one of the sad aspects of the Bill.
I am disappointed by the letter that the Minister sent on Thursday on safeguarders, a subject on which we explored a variety of issues. The very short response, which was sent to us at a late stage, did not enable us to explore the matter further on Report and Third Reading.
That said, I hope that many of the other issues will be addressed in another place. I give the Minister the assurance that whatever eventually appears on the statute book, the children of Scotland will be a subject to which many of us will return at every possible opportunity to try to ensure that the legislation is the best possible framework for them.

Dr. Godman: I am please that at long last, I am taking part in the Third Reading debate on a Children (Scotland) Bill. For all of its shortcomings, the Bill will give much greater protection to children, especially those caught up in the terrible circumstances of violence, separation and abuse.
Will the Bill, when it becomes an Act, in tandem with the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, lead to more installations of television network systems in sheriff courts throughout Scotland? Can the Minister confirm that as a result of these two pieces of legislation and one or two minor interventions by me, the television installation in the Greenock sheriff court will be permanent and not temporary?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that many


matters are still under consideration. The House will have the opportunity to consider them again at a later stage. I shall take a careful note of the hon. Lady's points.
The hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) paid tribute to the consortium and the other organisations. It is only fair to place on record the point that the evidence-taking sittings—the first held by a Scottish Standing Committee—turned out to be a complete success. They were a product of the "taking stock" exercise and of the White Paper, "Scotland in the Union: a partnership for good".
Having made that political point, I shall move on to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who mentioned the television network system. I will ensure that I ask the Law Officers about the up-to-date position and I will correspond with the hon. Gentleman in due course.
The Bill is important; it is a major reform of the law in Scotland in relation to children. It is drawn from a whole range of reports produced in recent years and it brings private and public law on children into a coherent framework. It reflects the principles of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. It is based on the firm view that care of children is essentially for parents, but it recognises that pressures can arise which call for support and, on occasion, intervention by public authorities. Partnership with parents is extremely important.
The Bill provides a sound framework for change and improvement in the interests of children. It sets a challenging agenda of implementation for the future and it provides a framework for protecting Scotland's children. It is good for Scotland's children and what is good for Scotland's children is good for Scotland's future.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, c

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, amp;c),

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Amendment Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 29th March, be approved.
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 29th March, be approved.
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 29th March, be approved.
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 29th March, be approved.—[Mr. Lang.]
Question agreed to.

HEALTH

Ordered,
That Mr. Robert Key be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr. Richard Spring be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

PETITION

Crime (Sentencing)

Dr. Robert Spink: I wish to present a petition collected by Mr. and Mrs. Martin, my constituents, and signed by 11,093 people, mainly in my constituency but representing the views of the vast majority of the people of Britain. They think that the House and the courts should get tough on crime and should stiffen sentences, particularly in circumstances such as the following case.
A man was threatening people with a knife, brandishing it at men and women. He then used that same knife to ruthlessly kill a youth. The terms of the petition are:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, The humble petition of the residents of Canvey Island and the surrounding area, sheweth:
That we, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that the sentence given to Andrew Osborne for the killing of Tony Martin was unduly lenient, and vigorously protest that the sentence should be increased. The jury at Chelmsford Crown Court found 31-year-old Andrew Osborne of Hertfordshire guilty of the manslaughter of Tony Martin during a fight on Canvey Island. Judge Peter Green was reported to tell Osborne that he opened that knife and plunged it into a 17-year-old boy's body. The judge is also reported to state that the sentence which he gave, of six years imprisonment, was the minimum he could pass. There is a great sense of outrage in the community at the apparent lenient sentence, and that the sentence does not provide an adequate deterrent against the carrying of knives and the use of knives, and that this lack of deterrent puts the community at an unacceptable risk.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do urge the right hon. Sir Nicholas Lyell QC MP, Attorney-General, to use his powers to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal on the basis that it was too lenient.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — House Building (Berkshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Sir Gerard Vaughan: I am glad to have this opportunity to bring before the House a matter that is causing great anxiety and concern, not only in my constituency but in other, neighbouring constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) has asked me whether, with the Chair's approval, he may join in the debate later. I have no objection at all to that.
Nobody could say that Berkshire has not contributed substantially to housing development in the south-east. In fact, some of us feel that we have taken more than our fair share. It is now proposed that we should have at least another 37,000 houses. Again, perhaps rather uneasily, we would not object to that. What is causing the anxiety, however, is that, on top of that number of houses in the next few years, about 3,000 additional houses are to be placed in the area directly south of Reading and the M4.
This is causing immense concern among the people living in the area, because they believe that it will be very damaging to the environment. I would agree. The problem is that the M4 makes a natural boundary, and we believe that, if it is breached by any substantial housing development, that will open the floodgates to development—not only from the M4 south of Reading down to the Hampshire border, but over that border and right the way along it. What at the moment in that part of Berkshire is an environmental asset will thereby become an environmental disaster.
The problem is that numbers of people are said to want to live in Berkshire. It is certainly a very desirable area. We hope that whatever decision the Secretary of State makes on the structure plan that is before him at the moment will include a caveat to the effect that any further developments in our area should not take place south of the M4. That is a point I wish to put across strongly to the Minister tonight.
It is not just the number of houses that we are worried about; it is where they go. That is what is causing dismay and outrage among our constituents. It would also, in our view, be contrary to the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there should not be substantial new housing on green-field sites when there are other development possibilities. I urge that policy strongly on my hon. Friend the Minister.
In this instance, there are many options. All the local authorities have said that they would be able to find other options. Perhaps they would be unable to do so rapidly, but certainly they could find them. We hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will understand that to allow housing development in the area of which I am talking would be contrary to his new policy, with which we entirely agree.
We are told that the houses are necessary because there are many people in Berkshire—living already in Berkshire or born in Berkshire, or educated in Berkshire—who wish to have houses in Berkshire. The same argument was advanced during the development at Lower Earley, which is in Berkshire. It is slightly north of the M4. In the event, the majority of people who moved into Lower Earley, which was then the largest new housing development in western Europe, did not come from Berkshire. They came

from other areas, many in the north of the country. To my surprise, many of them came from overseas. They were attracted by the prosperity in Berkshire. It was a place where they could find work.
The new development at Lower Earley did not achieve what was intended. Instead, it attracted other people into the area. We believe that exactly the same would happen if the construction of a mini-town was agreed to the south of the M4.
A few years ago, there was a similar inquiry about an area called Bugs Bottom, which is in the northern part of Caversham. Despite its rather curious name, it was a highly regarded area of amenity north of the river. The result of building there has been a disaster in amenity terms. Much more relevant is the fact that, at that time, I and others were assured that, if we did not object too strongly to development at Bugs Bottom, it would relieve pressure south of the motorway. It has done nothing of the sort. The proposals before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State make it clear that the pressures remain exactly the same.
Major changes are taking place in Berkshire. Changes are also taking place in the north of Kent, where people desperately want to see more housing. Changes are taking place there as a result of the proposal to make it the area for one of the major channel tunnel rail links. That development will lead to the need for more housing.
Now is not the moment to make long-term proposals for developing the part of the country which I represent in part.

Sir Anthony Durant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) for raising the matter of house building south of the M4, and for initiating this Adjournment debate. I am grateful to him also for allowing me to make a contribution to it.
As my hon. Friend has rightly said, development in Berkshire is a big issue. There is widespread concern. Many different figures have been bandied about in discussions about proposed new houses—32,000, 37,000 and as many as 40,000. The Government must realise, as my hon. Friend has said, that there has been over-development in Berkshire. They must also realise that a great part of the county, especially to the west, is green belt, in which there are many areas of outstanding natural beauty.
That means that there are areas that we are not allowed to develop, even if we wished to do so. That means also that development is confined very much to the centre of Berkshire. That is what puts on the pressure.
So desperate has the county been to find various sites that there was a proposal in my constituency to develop an area called the Fobney meadows, which is a flood plain. I have pictures that show it flooded by 2 ft of water. The Holy brook, which was the fresh water supply of Reading abbey, flows through it, and at the height of winter there is flooding. Naturally, that area has to be kept for flood plain. Yet the county, under pressure from central Government and from Serplan, looked to that area for possible development.
I believe, as does my hon. Friend, that the M4 forms a natural barrier. That is where development should stop. We should look for development in north Kent, where there is a great demand. I have the privilege of chairing the committee that is considering the channel tunnel rail link. It is expected that, as part of that new railway line, north Kent


should be an area of development. Surely the pressure should be taken off areas such as Berkshire and moved to north Kent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We have heard tonight from my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant)—the two key Members who represent those areas. It is important that we take note of the points that they have made. I shall add to the confusion, but try to clarify it a little, by touching on some of the figures that were mentioned.
The regional planning guidance for the south-east, which has recently been published, made provision for an annual average of 2,667 additional dwellings in Berkshire in the period 1991 to 2006. The guidance makes it clear that that figure has been constrained by consideration of environmental factors. It takes into account the intended long-term shift in the balance of new development pressures and employment opportunities in the region, from the west to the east.
In setting out the housing figure, the guidance makes it clear that it should not be regarded as an inflexible target, but that it should be subject to testing in the process of preparing the structure plan for the county. It was on that basis that Berkshire county council originally accepted Serplan's proposal for 40,000 additional dwellings in Berkshire. That figure then provided the basis for the level of provision in the published guidance.
A replacement Berkshire structure plan was first submitted to the Secretary of State in November 1991. That plan made provision for 41,100 dwellings in the period 1990 to 2006, but was subsequently withdrawn. A second plan was then deposited under new legislation in November 1992. That plan made provision for 35,670 dwellings for the slightly shorter period of 1991 to 2006.
An examination in public was held during June and July 1993. The panel examined various factors relating to housing need and demand and concluded that, in effect, the structure plan's proposed provision of 35,670 could be increased without compromising the environmental and sustainability objectives of the plan. The panel recommended to Berkshire county council that its housing figures should be amended to make provision for "about 48,000" dwellings.
In reaching these conclusions, the examination in public panel made it clear that it had taken into account the county council's case that there were constraints to development in Berkshire. These included various factors, such as the high level of growth in recent years, the need to have regard to sustainable levels of development, the pressure on infrastructure and the strong public opposition in the county to further growth. We have heard some of that this evening.
The panel was sympathetic to those arguments, but concluded that it was possible to accommodate a higher level of housing provision, while still having regard to the

environment. It pointed to the need for balance and clarity in the interpretation of a sustainable approach to planning, and looked at the social and economic consequences of a failure to meet the housing need seen in the county.
It should be noted that the panel made no—I repeat, no—specific recommendation to build houses south of the M4 at Reading. Indeed, the plan dated November 1991 proposed 41,100 dwellings, but still did not identify the area south of the M4 at Reading as an area for major new housing.
After considering the panel's recommendations, Berkshire county council published its draft modifications in April 1994, which increased the provision to 37,000 dwellings. Further modifications were published later in the year, but the housing figure remained unchanged. Although an objection was made by the Government Office for the South-east—that the housing figure should be more in line with the regional planning guidance—there was no question that the panel's figure should be imposed, or that development should be directed to any specific location, such as south of the M4
The location of new development is primarily a matter for the county council and districts. In particular, the decision on whether to make provision for additional development south of the M4 should be made by the local planning authorities in the context of preparing structure and local plans. The plan preparation provides the appropriate opportunity to take into account the environmental issues and the question of sustainability. As hon. Members will appreciate, the issues are complex. The current position is that a "holding" direction has recently been made by the Government Office for the South-east.
Problems of housing provision in the boundary of the green belt merit very careful consideration, and no final decisions have been made in respect of the Berkshire plan. I appreciate that that will cause a slight delay, but the delay is minor when set in the context of the length of time that Berkshire has taken to produce a replacement plan.
I assure my hon. Friends that, although no final decisions have been made, we are convinced that the panel's recommendation for housing provision in Berkshire is too high. Furthermore, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East that, in any response to the present Berkshire structure plan, the Government do not propose to identify any specific locations south of the M4 at Reading.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: Is there a possibility that the Government will say that development south of the M4 is undesirable, and that future figures should be based on local plans produced by the various district councils? I have a model example before me, produced by Wokingham district council.

Sir Paul Beresford: I look forward to seeing my hon. Friend's example, and will give it due consideration.
I think that we have made it as clear as we can that the Government have no intention of specifying any area south of the M4.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.